Home
Portal
Events
ROKC Wiki
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
Reopen the case of the Walker shot
+3
greg_parker
lanceman
Greg_Doudna
7 posters
Page 2 of 2 • 
1, 2
1, 2
Greg_Doudna- Posts : 116
Join date : 2020-09-21
Reopen the case of the Walker shot
Tue 14 Mar 2023, 8:57 pm
First topic message reminder :
Case for Oswald's innocence of attempted murder in the Walker shot. I am appearing with Larry Hancock on the Ochelli radio program on Thursday March 16, two days from now, to discuss this. (With some reluctance--I did not seek it out-- because my target audience is not the public, I am not interested in selling to the public, but am interested in having this vetted and, if warranted, criticized by informed and knowledgeable persons on the case.) This paper has new information not previously developed. Perhaps worth reading before kneejerk dismissal without reading it becomes the narrative (as I see from a comment of Alex elsewhere on this site).
https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1497. "Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot at General Walker on April 10, 1963?"
"Witness Kirk Coleman saw two men in two cars leaving an adjoining church parking lot immediately after a shot was fired into the Dallas home of General Edwin Walker said to have narrowly missed Walker on the night of April 10, 1963. Neither of those two cars and persons were identified by police, the FBI, the Warren Commission, or researchers to the present day. 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...
(. . .)
... "Conclusion. By Marina’s account Oswald created meticulous written evidence of his involvement in the Walker shot: maps, notes, photos, notebook, with remnants surviving in Oswald’s belongings supporting Marina’s account. In addition Oswald told Marina that he did it and how he did it, to Marina’s horror. Surely Oswald had to consider that an unsympathetic and horrified Marina would “leak”—would confide in or tell someone who would report it to the police. If so, a simple police search of the apartment would find Oswald’s detailed notebook, spelling out everything plainly. Was Oswald that stupid? One way of interpreting this, the default interpretation of the Warren Commission, was in psychological terms: it was part of Oswald wanting to be a major name in history, and in that light he might not care that he would receive a lengthy prison term, even if he had failed in what he set out to do. Is that a satisfactory explanation?
"If the shot was a real attempt to kill Walker then Oswald would be looking at a lengthy term in prison if caught and convicted, his life effectively gone. If Oswald was willing to have himself be caught and sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence—in this case for something that within ca. 12 hours he knew had not accomplished anything—he truly would be irrational and a fanatic. But if the shot was staged, then there is another possibility: he may not have minded if Marina turned him in whether directly or by leaking to someone who would—may not have minded for police to find that evidence, not from self-destructiveness but for a rational objective: a takedown of General Walker in another way.
"If the shot was staged, all it would take for Oswald’s exculpation if he were arrested would be for that to be shown or explained to prosecutors, information presented by an agency establishing that which was actually true. Presumably this would be shown to prosecutors prior to trial and Oswald would never come to trial. Instead Oswald might become a surprise witness in a prosecution of General Walker and Surrey. In this light Oswald faced no actual risk of conviction for attempted murder. Oswald would know that people would vouch for him, have his back. In this light Oswald’s meticulous documentation and self-incrimination in the Walker shot becomes not the inexplicable and irrational behavior it has appeared, but instead more like a “sting” done by Oswald on the General Walker operation and Walker.
"For all we know, an arrest of Oswald, if it had happened, might have ended up with Oswald in Washington, D.C. as a star witness before the Dodd Committee. The dangers of unregulated interstate mail-order firearms sales would be made starkly apparent and exposed to the nation—“the kind of thing that could happen, next time for real” if mail-order firearms were not regulated. The exposure that the Walker shot was faked would discredit General Walker as a charlatan and perhaps subject Walker and Surrey to criminal charges for knowingly making false statements to law enforcement officers. Oswald would regard his cooperation in the faked Walker shot as doing a “sting” on Walker and taking down Walker by that means. It is possible that that “sting” or closure was believed by Oswald still to happen at some point, still operational even in November, only its timing had been postponed.
"The central point of this study is that two seemingly disparate lines of evidence, which have been regarded as mutually exclusive, are both true: Oswald fired the shot, and it was a staged shot done for General Walker. They are both true because Oswald fired the staged shot that was done for General Walker. By design the shot was fired into an empty room and could not have harmed General Walker since he was not in the room when the shot was fired. When Oswald returned home to Marina late that night and told Marina he was not sure whether he had hit Walker, that was subterfuge. Oswald knew he had not, because he knew Walker was not in the room when he fired.
"All that needs to be supposed is the reasonable proposition that Lee did not tell Marina everything. In this light what Marina told the Secret Service and FBI post-Nov 22, 1963 becomes more or less truthful but limited, reflecting only what Lee told her, not the full truth. What Oswald told Marina becomes a valuable but incomplete spotlight on what happened the night of April 10, 1963. The accounts of Kirk Coleman and David Surrey represent second and third spotlights on the same events, glimpses of a fuller story.
"The fundamental question is not did Oswald fire the shot but rather the question of the title of this study: did Oswald shoot at General Walker the night of April 10, 1963? The answer of this study based on a fuller range of evidence, especially the breakthrough of this study in establishment of the identification of Kirk Coleman’s man No. 2 as Robert Surrey, is: no, Oswald did not shoot at General Walker the night of April 10, 1963, even though Oswald fired the shot and even though Oswald did not like what Walker stood for."
Case for Oswald's innocence of attempted murder in the Walker shot. I am appearing with Larry Hancock on the Ochelli radio program on Thursday March 16, two days from now, to discuss this. (With some reluctance--I did not seek it out-- because my target audience is not the public, I am not interested in selling to the public, but am interested in having this vetted and, if warranted, criticized by informed and knowledgeable persons on the case.) This paper has new information not previously developed. Perhaps worth reading before kneejerk dismissal without reading it becomes the narrative (as I see from a comment of Alex elsewhere on this site).
https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1497. "Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot at General Walker on April 10, 1963?"
"Witness Kirk Coleman saw two men in two cars leaving an adjoining church parking lot immediately after a shot was fired into the Dallas home of General Edwin Walker said to have narrowly missed Walker on the night of April 10, 1963. Neither of those two cars and persons were identified by police, the FBI, the Warren Commission, or researchers to the present day. 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...
(. . .)
... "Conclusion. By Marina’s account Oswald created meticulous written evidence of his involvement in the Walker shot: maps, notes, photos, notebook, with remnants surviving in Oswald’s belongings supporting Marina’s account. In addition Oswald told Marina that he did it and how he did it, to Marina’s horror. Surely Oswald had to consider that an unsympathetic and horrified Marina would “leak”—would confide in or tell someone who would report it to the police. If so, a simple police search of the apartment would find Oswald’s detailed notebook, spelling out everything plainly. Was Oswald that stupid? One way of interpreting this, the default interpretation of the Warren Commission, was in psychological terms: it was part of Oswald wanting to be a major name in history, and in that light he might not care that he would receive a lengthy prison term, even if he had failed in what he set out to do. Is that a satisfactory explanation?
"If the shot was a real attempt to kill Walker then Oswald would be looking at a lengthy term in prison if caught and convicted, his life effectively gone. If Oswald was willing to have himself be caught and sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence—in this case for something that within ca. 12 hours he knew had not accomplished anything—he truly would be irrational and a fanatic. But if the shot was staged, then there is another possibility: he may not have minded if Marina turned him in whether directly or by leaking to someone who would—may not have minded for police to find that evidence, not from self-destructiveness but for a rational objective: a takedown of General Walker in another way.
"If the shot was staged, all it would take for Oswald’s exculpation if he were arrested would be for that to be shown or explained to prosecutors, information presented by an agency establishing that which was actually true. Presumably this would be shown to prosecutors prior to trial and Oswald would never come to trial. Instead Oswald might become a surprise witness in a prosecution of General Walker and Surrey. In this light Oswald faced no actual risk of conviction for attempted murder. Oswald would know that people would vouch for him, have his back. In this light Oswald’s meticulous documentation and self-incrimination in the Walker shot becomes not the inexplicable and irrational behavior it has appeared, but instead more like a “sting” done by Oswald on the General Walker operation and Walker.
"For all we know, an arrest of Oswald, if it had happened, might have ended up with Oswald in Washington, D.C. as a star witness before the Dodd Committee. The dangers of unregulated interstate mail-order firearms sales would be made starkly apparent and exposed to the nation—“the kind of thing that could happen, next time for real” if mail-order firearms were not regulated. The exposure that the Walker shot was faked would discredit General Walker as a charlatan and perhaps subject Walker and Surrey to criminal charges for knowingly making false statements to law enforcement officers. Oswald would regard his cooperation in the faked Walker shot as doing a “sting” on Walker and taking down Walker by that means. It is possible that that “sting” or closure was believed by Oswald still to happen at some point, still operational even in November, only its timing had been postponed.
"The central point of this study is that two seemingly disparate lines of evidence, which have been regarded as mutually exclusive, are both true: Oswald fired the shot, and it was a staged shot done for General Walker. They are both true because Oswald fired the staged shot that was done for General Walker. By design the shot was fired into an empty room and could not have harmed General Walker since he was not in the room when the shot was fired. When Oswald returned home to Marina late that night and told Marina he was not sure whether he had hit Walker, that was subterfuge. Oswald knew he had not, because he knew Walker was not in the room when he fired.
"All that needs to be supposed is the reasonable proposition that Lee did not tell Marina everything. In this light what Marina told the Secret Service and FBI post-Nov 22, 1963 becomes more or less truthful but limited, reflecting only what Lee told her, not the full truth. What Oswald told Marina becomes a valuable but incomplete spotlight on what happened the night of April 10, 1963. The accounts of Kirk Coleman and David Surrey represent second and third spotlights on the same events, glimpses of a fuller story.
"The fundamental question is not did Oswald fire the shot but rather the question of the title of this study: did Oswald shoot at General Walker the night of April 10, 1963? The answer of this study based on a fuller range of evidence, especially the breakthrough of this study in establishment of the identification of Kirk Coleman’s man No. 2 as Robert Surrey, is: no, Oswald did not shoot at General Walker the night of April 10, 1963, even though Oswald fired the shot and even though Oswald did not like what Walker stood for."
- Greg_Doudna
- Posts : 116
Join date : 2020-09-21
Re: Reopen the case of the Walker shot
Tue 21 Mar 2023, 12:09 pm
Here I try to address questions and comments from others missed so far and if there are no further, wrap up.
Mick Purdy says, "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."
OK fair enough. Of the 79 pages 40% is quotes from primary sources such as WC testimony. Here are the section headings in order which may give an overview.
- What has been known about the two cars seen by Coleman until now?
- Identification of the black-over-white sedan of man No. 2: it is the car of Walker aide Robert Surrey
- Coleman's identification of Surrey's 1961 Ford Sunliner as a 1958 Chevy
- Two Boy Scouts see the same black-over-white car the evening of the Walker shot: "a pretty good looking car"
- Physical descriptions of man No. 2 and Robert Surrey compared
- Kirk Coleman at the Walker house
- David Surrey's younger brother William's memory of the night of the Walker shot
- David Surrey leaving with his father after the shot
- Explanation of man No. 2 putting something on the rear floorboards of the car [preparing the front seat for a passenger, his 12-year old son David]
- Something seriously not right with Robert Surrey's story
- Perjury in Robert Surrey's testimony--why?
- What happened next after Robert Surrey and David left the Walker house
- Fortuitous circumstances for the shooter
- The Surreys and the church next door
- Early suspicions that the Walker shot was staged by Walker
- Allegation that Walker tried to arrange a fake kidnapping of himself for publicity in 1962
- Was the shot reported to have been fired at General Walker staged by Walker?
- Key items in combination (so far) suggesting the General Walker shot of April 10, 1963 agrees with a profile of a staged shot
- Robert Surrey's involvement in the Walker shot means the shot was staged
- Oswald as shooter
- Assessment of Marina's testimony
- How did a German publication know of Oswald's role in the Walker shot before the Secret Service and FBI?
- Robert Surrey and Oswald
- Robert Surrey and Oswald practiced shooting together
- Surrey's report of two suspicious men several days earlier casing Walker's house [Surrey was not surveilling the two men; he was coordinating with them preparing the staged shot]
- Oswald tells Marina of being at the Walker house the night Surrey was there, preparing for the shot on Wed April 10
- General Walker's attempt to implicate William McEwan Duff
- Kirk Coleman's man No. 1 in the church parking lot as a signaler
- Analysis
- Did Oswald intend to have himself turned in by Marina and be arrested?
- How could Oswald be involved with Walker people such as Robert Surrey with views so different from his own?
- Oswald as an informant on the radical right ["the idea is that Oswald, poor and working-class, reading Marx as a teenager, at times went to work for The Man, operating covertly to provide information on groups under surveillance by U.S. agencies"]
- Conclusion
Alex Wilson--good comment, thanks.
lanceman--thanks for your comments. The suggestion to have a drawing of the layout of the Walker house, neighbor houses, alley, church parking lot and so on, yes good idea, will try to do that next iteration. For the moment, see the schematic at page 97 of Steve Roe's article in Gayle Nix Jackson, Pieces of the Puzzle.
lanceman again--four points/questions. I address:
1- on why General Walker later pursued the bullet substitution claim if he staged the shot (why not leave well enough alone) ... first, he was nuts though sincerely nuts on the claim itself (his premise for his pursuit was that the evidence bullet was pristine which was not correct), but to go to your question, my answer: by the reconstruction, Walker knew the shot was staged, had not been in the room when the shot was fired, even though Surrey did all the practical work. It is even possible Walker "didn't want to know" and remained ignorant of the identity of the actual shooter and signaler etc. arranged by Surrey whether that was Oswald or any other. Walker tried to make the shot into a RFK conspiracy with Oswald. The bullet substitution he latched on to and asked if the "CIA" had tried to kill him. He had a penchant for publicity. By my thinking of the staged-shot, the substituted bullet and CIA questions were Walker theatre, living out a persona different from the truth, no different than he was used to doing longterm as a closeted gay. I don't see it as contradictory to the staged shot origin of the shot, in other words.
2 - on foliage and time of year in the Oswald photos of the Walker house vicinity, I could not find anything on that issue. I checked Bart Kamp's Walker documents link but did not see anything there. I am unfamiliar with this question or issue if there is one.
3 - this is an important one and I quote you here in full: "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."
I puzzled over that in preparation of the paper, and propose in explanation of what you describe that, strange as it may sound, Oswald was attempting to instigate his own arrest. No, he had no intention or anticipation of serving time in prison, but I make an argument that he could have been attempting to instigate his own arrest, have Marina on her own initiative have him turned in, with plenty of evidence for police to find; see the final five sections of my paper cited above. In other words, what you describe is unusual for a criminal acting alone and suggests something else is going on, which I suggested relates to Oswald as an infiltrator of the Walker extremist-right circle in Dallas 1963 and a possible "sting" operation with maybe an agency behind him.
4 - on the Walker bullet issues. I don't have anything to add to what is already known. The evidence bullet which seems to at least be plausible as a Mannlicher-Carcano differs from the original police description meaning either the original description was in error or there was a substitution. To me, the original mistake explanation is simpler but I don't really know, and from my point of view it does not matter or affect the argument of my paper either way so is not essential to resolve.
Mick Purdy says, "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."
OK fair enough. Of the 79 pages 40% is quotes from primary sources such as WC testimony. Here are the section headings in order which may give an overview.
- What has been known about the two cars seen by Coleman until now?
- Identification of the black-over-white sedan of man No. 2: it is the car of Walker aide Robert Surrey
- Coleman's identification of Surrey's 1961 Ford Sunliner as a 1958 Chevy
- Two Boy Scouts see the same black-over-white car the evening of the Walker shot: "a pretty good looking car"
- Physical descriptions of man No. 2 and Robert Surrey compared
- Kirk Coleman at the Walker house
- David Surrey's younger brother William's memory of the night of the Walker shot
- David Surrey leaving with his father after the shot
- Explanation of man No. 2 putting something on the rear floorboards of the car [preparing the front seat for a passenger, his 12-year old son David]
- Something seriously not right with Robert Surrey's story
- Perjury in Robert Surrey's testimony--why?
- What happened next after Robert Surrey and David left the Walker house
- Fortuitous circumstances for the shooter
- The Surreys and the church next door
- Early suspicions that the Walker shot was staged by Walker
- Allegation that Walker tried to arrange a fake kidnapping of himself for publicity in 1962
- Was the shot reported to have been fired at General Walker staged by Walker?
- Key items in combination (so far) suggesting the General Walker shot of April 10, 1963 agrees with a profile of a staged shot
- Robert Surrey's involvement in the Walker shot means the shot was staged
- Oswald as shooter
- Assessment of Marina's testimony
- How did a German publication know of Oswald's role in the Walker shot before the Secret Service and FBI?
- Robert Surrey and Oswald
- Robert Surrey and Oswald practiced shooting together
- Surrey's report of two suspicious men several days earlier casing Walker's house [Surrey was not surveilling the two men; he was coordinating with them preparing the staged shot]
- Oswald tells Marina of being at the Walker house the night Surrey was there, preparing for the shot on Wed April 10
- General Walker's attempt to implicate William McEwan Duff
- Kirk Coleman's man No. 1 in the church parking lot as a signaler
- Analysis
- Did Oswald intend to have himself turned in by Marina and be arrested?
- How could Oswald be involved with Walker people such as Robert Surrey with views so different from his own?
- Oswald as an informant on the radical right ["the idea is that Oswald, poor and working-class, reading Marx as a teenager, at times went to work for The Man, operating covertly to provide information on groups under surveillance by U.S. agencies"]
- Conclusion
Alex Wilson--good comment, thanks.
lanceman--thanks for your comments. The suggestion to have a drawing of the layout of the Walker house, neighbor houses, alley, church parking lot and so on, yes good idea, will try to do that next iteration. For the moment, see the schematic at page 97 of Steve Roe's article in Gayle Nix Jackson, Pieces of the Puzzle.
lanceman again--four points/questions. I address:
1- on why General Walker later pursued the bullet substitution claim if he staged the shot (why not leave well enough alone) ... first, he was nuts though sincerely nuts on the claim itself (his premise for his pursuit was that the evidence bullet was pristine which was not correct), but to go to your question, my answer: by the reconstruction, Walker knew the shot was staged, had not been in the room when the shot was fired, even though Surrey did all the practical work. It is even possible Walker "didn't want to know" and remained ignorant of the identity of the actual shooter and signaler etc. arranged by Surrey whether that was Oswald or any other. Walker tried to make the shot into a RFK conspiracy with Oswald. The bullet substitution he latched on to and asked if the "CIA" had tried to kill him. He had a penchant for publicity. By my thinking of the staged-shot, the substituted bullet and CIA questions were Walker theatre, living out a persona different from the truth, no different than he was used to doing longterm as a closeted gay. I don't see it as contradictory to the staged shot origin of the shot, in other words.
2 - on foliage and time of year in the Oswald photos of the Walker house vicinity, I could not find anything on that issue. I checked Bart Kamp's Walker documents link but did not see anything there. I am unfamiliar with this question or issue if there is one.
3 - this is an important one and I quote you here in full: "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."
I puzzled over that in preparation of the paper, and propose in explanation of what you describe that, strange as it may sound, Oswald was attempting to instigate his own arrest. No, he had no intention or anticipation of serving time in prison, but I make an argument that he could have been attempting to instigate his own arrest, have Marina on her own initiative have him turned in, with plenty of evidence for police to find; see the final five sections of my paper cited above. In other words, what you describe is unusual for a criminal acting alone and suggests something else is going on, which I suggested relates to Oswald as an infiltrator of the Walker extremist-right circle in Dallas 1963 and a possible "sting" operation with maybe an agency behind him.
4 - on the Walker bullet issues. I don't have anything to add to what is already known. The evidence bullet which seems to at least be plausible as a Mannlicher-Carcano differs from the original police description meaning either the original description was in error or there was a substitution. To me, the original mistake explanation is simpler but I don't really know, and from my point of view it does not matter or affect the argument of my paper either way so is not essential to resolve.
- lanceman
- Posts : 325
Join date : 2021-02-04
Re: Reopen the case of the Walker shot
Wed 29 Mar 2023, 4:56 am
Greg D., I went back over your essay in greater detail. While it would not be totally out of character for Walker to stage a failed assassination attempt on himself, I’m unconvinced by your scenario.
Your scenario relies heavily on William Surrey yet details provided by him contain too many glaring errors and apparent contradictions with what his younger brother purportedly said. For example, why would Robert Surrey and his son catch up with one of the conspirators and ask “Did you get him?” if Surrey was in the house when the shot was fired?
Why would Surrey (or his family) need to be in the house when the shooting took place? If it was to serve as witnesses, why didn’t they tell the police what they saw? What is the purpose of sending the Surrey family home and then bringing them back later?
Kirk Coleman stated that man #2 had long hair in the back. Does that fit the description of Robert Surrey?
If Oswald was the shooter, what was the role of the men that drove away immediately afterwards? Based on the leisurely way that car #1 left the scene as described by Coleman, it doesn’t appear that the man in car #1 had anything to do with the shooting.
It turns out that the window through which the shot entered the house DID have a window shade as shown in what appears to be local news footage of the police investigation. How the police missed this in their report is beyond me. The window shade draw string is also apparent in the police crime scene photos. It’s not unusual on a very hot night to have a window open with the window shade up in a home without air conditioning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjXkDLRFzOg
Regarding the obstreperous barking dog that didn’t bark, it is the owner’s conjecture that the dog was poisoned. She never had the dog examined by a veterinarian. A plausible alternative explanation is that owners often keep food and water outside for their dogs. It had been an extremely hot day. The dog could very well have consumed food or water that had a high bacteria count resulting from the high temperatures.Ultimately, the poisoning conjecture is irrelevant as the owner moved the dog inside before knowing the dog was sick, something Surrey couldn’t have known about.
Even if Walker’s backyard floodlight was deliberately inoperable, as you point out, there was a full moon that evening. I used Stellarium to determine the sky conditions at 9:00 PM on April 10, 1963 in Dallas and note that the full moon was at an elevation of 28 degrees. Assuming the Walker house was 25-30 feet high, the moon would have been well above the house to illuminate much of the backyard and the shooter’s position. Kirk Coleman noted that the Mormon Church parking lot light was not on as well at the time. How could Walker and Surrey arrange this?
https://stellarium-web.org/
The above observations considerably weakens three of the fortuitous circumstances supporting your scenario, specifically 1) the dog that didn’t bark, 2) the inoperable floodlight and 3) no window shade present.
You add a fourth lucky coincidence that Walker was in a well lit room at night. While most people prefer a well lit room at night unless they are asleep, it does raise the question of whether the particular room Walker was in was luck or planning. That side of the house was the only location that offered relatively close access and concealment. From the surveillance photos supposedly taken by Oswald, it shows no focus on that particular room. While it would not be surprising that Walker had an office that he spent much time in, whether he was in that particular room at that particular time was known to the shooter from inside information, surveillance of Walker’s routine or pure luck is unknown.
I think the police should have taken measurements of the lattice fence which provided the shooter with support for the rifle. It could have provided a lower limit on the height of the shooter. Also curious that the police apparently never photographed the bullet recovered from Walker’s home.
I find the story line behind that Duff character pretty strange. Duff shows up at Walker’s home and Walker offers to let him stay for free in return for helping out? In 1976, Walker was arrested for public lewdness when he fondled a male policeman in a public restroom. I’m wondering just what kind of “helping out” Duff was providing.
Your scenario relies heavily on William Surrey yet details provided by him contain too many glaring errors and apparent contradictions with what his younger brother purportedly said. For example, why would Robert Surrey and his son catch up with one of the conspirators and ask “Did you get him?” if Surrey was in the house when the shot was fired?
Why would Surrey (or his family) need to be in the house when the shooting took place? If it was to serve as witnesses, why didn’t they tell the police what they saw? What is the purpose of sending the Surrey family home and then bringing them back later?
Kirk Coleman stated that man #2 had long hair in the back. Does that fit the description of Robert Surrey?
If Oswald was the shooter, what was the role of the men that drove away immediately afterwards? Based on the leisurely way that car #1 left the scene as described by Coleman, it doesn’t appear that the man in car #1 had anything to do with the shooting.
It turns out that the window through which the shot entered the house DID have a window shade as shown in what appears to be local news footage of the police investigation. How the police missed this in their report is beyond me. The window shade draw string is also apparent in the police crime scene photos. It’s not unusual on a very hot night to have a window open with the window shade up in a home without air conditioning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjXkDLRFzOg
Regarding the obstreperous barking dog that didn’t bark, it is the owner’s conjecture that the dog was poisoned. She never had the dog examined by a veterinarian. A plausible alternative explanation is that owners often keep food and water outside for their dogs. It had been an extremely hot day. The dog could very well have consumed food or water that had a high bacteria count resulting from the high temperatures.Ultimately, the poisoning conjecture is irrelevant as the owner moved the dog inside before knowing the dog was sick, something Surrey couldn’t have known about.
Even if Walker’s backyard floodlight was deliberately inoperable, as you point out, there was a full moon that evening. I used Stellarium to determine the sky conditions at 9:00 PM on April 10, 1963 in Dallas and note that the full moon was at an elevation of 28 degrees. Assuming the Walker house was 25-30 feet high, the moon would have been well above the house to illuminate much of the backyard and the shooter’s position. Kirk Coleman noted that the Mormon Church parking lot light was not on as well at the time. How could Walker and Surrey arrange this?
https://stellarium-web.org/
The above observations considerably weakens three of the fortuitous circumstances supporting your scenario, specifically 1) the dog that didn’t bark, 2) the inoperable floodlight and 3) no window shade present.
You add a fourth lucky coincidence that Walker was in a well lit room at night. While most people prefer a well lit room at night unless they are asleep, it does raise the question of whether the particular room Walker was in was luck or planning. That side of the house was the only location that offered relatively close access and concealment. From the surveillance photos supposedly taken by Oswald, it shows no focus on that particular room. While it would not be surprising that Walker had an office that he spent much time in, whether he was in that particular room at that particular time was known to the shooter from inside information, surveillance of Walker’s routine or pure luck is unknown.
I think the police should have taken measurements of the lattice fence which provided the shooter with support for the rifle. It could have provided a lower limit on the height of the shooter. Also curious that the police apparently never photographed the bullet recovered from Walker’s home.
I find the story line behind that Duff character pretty strange. Duff shows up at Walker’s home and Walker offers to let him stay for free in return for helping out? In 1976, Walker was arrested for public lewdness when he fondled a male policeman in a public restroom. I’m wondering just what kind of “helping out” Duff was providing.
- Vinny
- Posts : 3409
Join date : 2013-08-27
Re: Reopen the case of the Walker shot
Fri 31 Mar 2023, 10:27 pm
https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/did-lee-harvey-oswald-shoot-general
_________________
Out With Bill Shelley In Front.
- lanceman
- Posts : 325
Join date : 2021-02-04
Re: Reopen the case of the Walker shot
Sat 01 Apr 2023, 3:10 am
Vinny wrote:https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/did-lee-harvey-oswald-shoot-general
I haven’t read the article yet but here are sone questions that come to mind:
How did Oswald carry a rifle under or wrapped in a coat on public transportation in 80+degree weather without attracting suspicion? The whole week experienced pretty warm temperatures and dry conditions.
It must have been a huge coat to hide a 42 inch rifle!
Supposedly, Oswald meticulously planned the Walker shooting but carried the rifle to the Walker shooting scene fully assembled. Yet for the spur of the moment assassination he carries the rifle to the scene disassembled?
There is speculation on the EF that perhaps a pistol was used. This is certainly possible but Oswald’s modified pistol resulted in bullets wobbling as they left the barrel and would be pretty inaccurate over 100 feet.
If Oswald was involved, he wasn’t alone.
- lanceman
- Posts : 325
Join date : 2021-02-04
Re: Reopen the case of the Walker shot
Sat 01 Apr 2023, 6:33 am
It appears that Greg D. has resigned from ROKC and chose to respond via tge EF.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28924-oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance/page/7/#comments
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28924-oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance/page/7/#comments
- lanceman
- Posts : 325
Join date : 2021-02-04
Re: Reopen the case of the Walker shot
Thu 06 Apr 2023, 8:23 am
Several papers on the Walker shooting believe that the neighbor’s dog, which had a habit of barking at strangers, was poisoned to silence the dog so as not to interfere with the shooting.
I looked into this and it seems that food poisoning in mammals has a highly variable incubation period varying between a few hours and a couple of days. The dog in the Walker case did not appear ill until early the next morning. How would the supposed poisoner know the required dosage, when to administer the poison, whether the dog consumed any or enough of the poison to be sure the dog would be ill at the time of the shooting?
I suppose they could have planned to use a poison that would kill the dog to guarantee the dog would not be a problem but then there might have been an autopsy which would detected the poison and arouse suspicion.
If they wanted a reliable way to put the dog out of action, the best choice would be a sedative, either one used by veterinarians or perhaps sleeping pills which have well known dose-response characteristics. But the dog’s symptoms don’t suggest this was done.
At any rate, the dog’s owner brought the dog in the house well before the dog exhibited signs of illness, something the shooter could not have planned.
I’m not even sure the barking dog would have been a problem if it was left in the backyard. A dog that barks so frequently tends to be ignored much as car alarms are.
I looked into this and it seems that food poisoning in mammals has a highly variable incubation period varying between a few hours and a couple of days. The dog in the Walker case did not appear ill until early the next morning. How would the supposed poisoner know the required dosage, when to administer the poison, whether the dog consumed any or enough of the poison to be sure the dog would be ill at the time of the shooting?
I suppose they could have planned to use a poison that would kill the dog to guarantee the dog would not be a problem but then there might have been an autopsy which would detected the poison and arouse suspicion.
If they wanted a reliable way to put the dog out of action, the best choice would be a sedative, either one used by veterinarians or perhaps sleeping pills which have well known dose-response characteristics. But the dog’s symptoms don’t suggest this was done.
At any rate, the dog’s owner brought the dog in the house well before the dog exhibited signs of illness, something the shooter could not have planned.
I’m not even sure the barking dog would have been a problem if it was left in the backyard. A dog that barks so frequently tends to be ignored much as car alarms are.
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
1, 2Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum