WALKER SHOOTING

This page contains Multiple Official Documents which bring "Serious Doubt" to the Lone Assassin Theory.

Most of these documents are self explanatory to those who have some degree of understanding of the subject.

All others feel free to contact me for further explanations.

General Walker shooting

In an attempt to show that Oswald had the capacity to kill, they accused him of trying to kill Walker on April 10, 1963.

General Edwin Walker was a right wing radical Fired by JFK for Politically Indoctrinating his troops.

WHY would Oswald or anyone else want to shoot two people from opposite ends of the political spectrum?

Below are the exhibits of evidence in an attempt to incriminate Oswald for the Walker shooting.

These exhibits show the Opposite and evidence Tampering.

Below are SEVEN (7) Official Records proving that the Walker bullet was STEEL-JACKETED.

The following is from HSCA Volumes describing bullet recovered from Walker shooting.

below is a report of steel jacketed bullets

Below is the Original DPD Report dated April 10, 1963 describing the bullet recovered from the
Walker shooting as "steel jacketed". Volume XXIV page 39.

Copy to your desktop then use your graphic program to enlarge or, even save in Higher resolution.

Below from Warren Commission's Documents.

ANOTHER REPORT OF "STEEL JACKET". (below)

Volume XXIV page 29b

Below is from the hsca volumes

Below, Volume XXIV page 32 finds a Source for Steel-Jacketed Bullets !

Below is Walker bullet on left as published in 26 volumes. Does it look like you would

describe it as "steel jacketed"?

On right is CE-399. (Both copper-Jacketed)

SEE page 562 of the Warren Report>>>

FROM THE HSCA VOLUME VI PAGE 296 (BELOW)

15 YEARS LATER

III. THE WALKER BULLET

The shot taken at General Walker was referred to several times during
the public hearings as being fired by Oswald. This is a terribly
misleading assumption.

It is still questionable whether the Mannlicher-Carcano can be linked
to Oswald, But even if it was his, it could not have fired the Walker
bullet." Oswald's alleged rifle fired 6.5-ram ammunition, copper
jacketed while the Walker bullet was a steel jacketed 30.06.

Oswald has never been linked with another rifle during that period of time.

( 6 HSCA 296 ) Below

In a STUPID attempt to bolster his LIE that the Walker bullet was indeed "copper-jacketed" Wally World supplied us with an (8th) EIGHTH document proving it was a "Steel-Jacketed" bullet.

The above document comes from Box 20 Folder 8 on the DPD Website>>>

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/ File # 3979-001 (Wally Never gives Citations)

Below is a photo from DPD Chief Jesse Curry's book showing the Walker back yard photo intact.

Even General Walker testified that he did NOT believe it was Oswald

who took a shot at him.

The authorities said they found a photo among Oswald's possessions showing Walker's back yard.

In that photo was an automobile parked in the back yard.

The authorities Altered that photo 3 times. Once by Whiting out the license plate of the car. (see attached exhibit above from DPD Chief Curry's book)

Next by putting a Hole in the photo as per Marina's testimony. see below.

Mr. McKENZIE. Now, when you say "they," Marina, who do you mean by "they?"
Mrs. OSWALD. FBI, Secret Service, and the President's Commission.
Mr. LIEBELER. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 5, which is a copy of one of the photographs that was found among these effects after the assassination.
*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Does that appear to be one of the photographs about which you were speaking?
*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; that's one.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you absolutely sure about that?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't remember when Lee showed me the picture that it was this.
Mrs. OSWALD. When I was first shown this picture, I remember that there was a license plate number on this car.
Mr. LIEBELER. When Lee showed you the picture, there was a license plate number on the car?
*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. As shown in Commission Exhibit No. 5; is that right?
*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you look at this picture you see that there is a black mark on the back of this, do you know what makes that black mark?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No; but I think when the Commission showed me this picture the number was there.
Mr. McKENZIE. License plate?
Mrs. OSWALD. I would have remembered this black spot if it were there at the time the Commission showed me this, or the FBI. When the FBI first showed me this photograph I remember that the license plate, the number of the license plate was on this car, was on the photograph.
*Mrs. OSWALD. It had the white and black numbers. There was no black spot that I see on it now. When Lee showed me this photograph there was the number on the license plate on this picture. I would have remembered it if there were a black spot on the back of the car where the license plate would be.
Mr. LIEBELER. The original of this picture, the actual photograph, has a hole through it. That's what makes this black spot.
*Mrs. OSWALD. This is from the negative?
Mr. GREGORY. This picture was made from the original photograph, rather than from a negative?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; it's simply a picture of a picture.
Mrs. OSWALD. When the FBI and Lee showed me this particular picture--
*Mrs. OSWALD. Not this big size.
Mrs. OSWALD. This photograph--it was a smaller size.
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
Mrs. OSWALD. There was a license plate on this car.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that very clearly?
Mrs. OSWALD. When Lee showed it to me, I remember very distinctly that there was a license plate on this car. When this business about General Walker came up I would have remembered this black spot.

294

Page 295

Mr. LIEBELER. Or the hole?
Mrs. OSWALD. Or the hole in the original--I would have remembered it.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you remember, then, that the license plate was actually on that car when you saw the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. This black spot is so striking I would have remembered it if it were on the photograph that Lee showed me or the FBI.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let's address ourselves also, not just to the black spot but to the possibility that they may have shown you the actual original photograph on which there is no black spot, but which has a hole right through the photograph.
Mrs. OSWALD. There was no hole in the original when they showed it to me I'm positive of it.
Mr. McKENZIE. All right, let me ask her a question.
Mrs. OSWALD. This is the first time I saw a black spot or have heard about a hole in the original photograph.
*Mrs. OSWALD. Why does the Commission not ask me about this?
Mr. McKENZIE. Well, the Commission is asking you about it now, because Mr. Liebeler represents the Commission.
*Mrs. OSWALD. I know it.
Mr. McKENZIE. Let me ask you--when Lee showed you this picture, which is Commission Exhibit No. 5, had it been folded over?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. McKENZIE. At that time did the car that appears in the picture, did it have a hole in the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. McKENZIE. When the FBI or the Secret Service showed you this picture, had it been folded?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. McKENZIE. Who showed you the picture the FBI or the Secret Service or the Commission?
*Mrs. OSWALD. The FBI first and then the Commission.
Mr. McKENZIE. Now, at the time the Commission showed you the picture in Washington, was there a hole shown in the picture where the cat's license plate would be?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't know what happened to this picture, because when the Commission showed me the picture there was not this spot here.
Mrs. OSWALD. If there was a hole, I would have asked them right away why that hole is there or the black spot.
Mr. McKENZIE. Off the record, please.
(Discussion between Mr. McKenzie and Mr. Liebeler to the effect that the picture might have been creased in the process of making a print from the original photograph.)
Mr. McKENZIE. One more question---is this the first time that you have seen the picture when there was a black spot in the back of the automobile?
*Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; the first time.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen a picture like this that had a hole in it?
*Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think of anything else about this Walker incident that you haven't already told the Commission that you think we should know that you can remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think I have told all I know about it--I can't remember anything else now.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did it seem strange to you at the time, Marina, that Lee did make these careful plans, take pictures, and write it up in a notebook, and then when he went out to shoot at General Walker he left all that incriminating evidence fight in the house so that if he had ever been stopped and questioned and if that notebook had been found, it would have clearly indicated that he was the one that shot at General Walker?
Mrs. OSWALD. He was such a person that nothing seems peculiar to me for what he did. I had so many surprises from him that nothing surprised me. He may have wished to appear such a brave man or something.

295
Here it is "WITH" the HOLE.

Finally they "Blacked Out" the area of the license plate as published in the

26 volumes (see Below)

Here is the letter from FBI Director Hoover below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOMXe_4MUo

SEE WALKER'S TESTIMONY>>>

XI page 426

General WALKER. He called me the morning of November 23, 1963, about 7 a.m.

Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you gave him this information about Oswald having attacked you?

General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information--I think the portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have a record here that indicates when you were in Shreveport ?

General WALKER. I don't know that I have a record here. I can tell you definitely when I was in Shreveport .

The Walker Shooting WITNESS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGOMXe_4MUo

Do you remember Dallas FBI Agent James Hosty?

The one who Destroyed the note Oswald delivered to the FBI office.

WELL, Hosty was involved in the Walker Case since June of 1963.

SEE Volume XXIV page 38>>>

Which might explain how the Steel Jacketed bullet recovered from the Walker shooting Morphed into a copper jacketed bullet for the Warren Commission.

http://whokilledjfk.net/fbi_hosty.htm

william duff

Not walker bullet

NOT WALKER BULLET

| Junk All | Newsgroups | Help |

Article 84 of 362 in alt.conspiracy.jfk
CE 573 "Walker Bullet" NOT Walker Bullet
Gil Jesus <gjjmail@aol.com>
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Tuesday 12:16 PM

Walker to FBI:

"The bullet before your select committee called the Walker bullet is

not the Walker bullet. It is not the bullet that was fired at me and

taken out of my house by the Dallas City Police on April 10, 1963. The

bullet you have was not gotten from me or taken out of my house by

anyone at anytime."

Walker then sends a mailogram to Blakey that the bullet recovered was

nothing more than a hunk of lead that didn't even resemble a bullet:

"The bullet used and pictured on the TV by US Senate G.Robert Blakey

Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet

completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no resemblance to any

unfired bullet in shape or form.

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."

In a June,1979 letter to a deputy AG, Walker's attorney noted his

client's experience:

"It is more probable than not that a person of this experience would

know and recognize the bullet that was fired at him when he and the

Dallas police retrieved and examined the spent bullet at the time of

the attempted assassination on him.

For these reasons I feel that it is of some weight that the Select

Committee and the Department of Justice consider his opinions with

respect to the possibility of substituted evidence in the House

Committee investigation.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf

| Junk All | Newsgroups | Help |

below courtesy of gil jesus websitehttp://www.JFK63Conspiracy

The Witness

Mr. JENNER. Who is Mr. Coleman? Do you know a man by that name?
Mr. SURREY. Not personally.
Mr. JENNER. Walker Kirk Coleman.
Mr. SURREY. As I just read on the back of your exhibit, he is the boy that reported seeing several automobiles at the time of the assassination.
Mr. JENNER. That is immaterial to this issue.

( 5 H 448 )

Walter Kirk Coleman was the 14-year old neighbor of General Walker. On the evening of April 10, 1963, he was working with his godfather building shelves in his room, when he heard a shot sometime between 9 and 10 pm.

He immediately ran from his first floor bedroom and looked over a stockade fence into the Mormon church parking lot that adjoined General Walker's property. He saw two men getting into two cars and leaving the parking lot.

On June 3, 1964, FBI agents Robert Barrett and Ivan Lee interviewed young Coleman, he was able to describe the men he saw and the cars.

Coleman told the FBI that neither man he saw resembled Oswald.

In order to establish how good a look Coleman got of these two men, the FBI found it necessary to determine how long it took for Coleman to get to the fence. To do so, the agents measured the distance and timed Coleman in a re-enactment. The FBI found that the distance from the door of Coleman's house to the stockade fence was 14 feet and it took Coleman a grand total of 2 seconds to get there. The FBI needed to shorten Coleman's response time in order to show that the two men he saw couldn't have been involved in the shooting.

The FBI measured from the alley entrance to the Walker property to the alley entrance of the church parking lot at 35 feet. It measured the distance of where Coleman said the 1950 Ford was to the alley entrance of the church parking lot at 45 feet. That's a distance of 80 feet, far too long for someone to have traveled in a time of 2 seconds. Likewise, they measured the distance from the 1958 Chevrolet to the alley entrance of the church parking lot at 21 feet, for a total of 56 feet, again, an impossible distance to travel in 2 seconds.

On its face, the FBI report would seem to prove that the two men Coleman saw had nothing to do with the shooting, because their positions when he saw them, at 80 feet and 56 feet from the Walker property, could not have been traveled in the two seconds the FBI said it took for Coleman to get to the fence.

The FBI had Coleman in "a doorway which leads from his bedroom to the outside of the house".

Ever see a house having a bedroom with a door that leads outside ?

I haven't.

In fact, in the original Dallas Police report, Coleman's account was quite different. In this account, Coleman was " in the back room " ( not a doorway ). He "ran out back" and saw a man getting into the Ford who had "long black hair" and " took off in a hurry ".

Coleman's position at the time he heard the shot is crucial in determining whether or not either or both men in the church parking lot should be considered suspects in the shooting. If Coleman was in the doorway of the house and viewed the men in the lot no later than two seconds after the shot ( which I find unlikely ), they must be discounted as suspects. But if Coleman was in his bedroom and had to run out the back of the house, and it took him 8-10 seconds to get to the fence, it's very likely that a running man would have traveled 80 feet or less in that time.

The reader should note that on page 1 of the FBI report, individual # 1 was "hurrying toward the driver's side" of the '50 Ford and by the third paragraph of the last page the same individual was "walking towards" the same car.

This is typical FBI downplaying of what the witness saw.

Unsatisfied with the Dallas Police's investigation into the shooting, General Walker hired a private investigator and he himself interviewed witnesses. He accused the Commission and FBI of blocking his access to Coleman:

"...as far as I am concerned, our efforts are practically blocked. I would like to see at least a capability of my counsel being able to talk to these witnesses freely and that you or the FBI give a release on them with respect to being able to discuss it as it involves me."

( 11 H 416 )

General WALKER. ..... I was told by others that tried to get to him that he has been advised and wasn't talking, and that he had been advised not to talk.
Mr. LIEBELER. When was that, General Walker, do you remember?
General WALKER. Oh, it's been at least 3 or 4 months ago.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know who told him he wasn't supposed to talk to anybody?
General WALKER. No; I don't. It is my understanding some law enforcement agency in some echelon.

( 11 H 417 )

General WALKER. ......people would like to shut up anybody that knows anything about this case. People right here in Dallas.

( 11 H 419 )

| Junk All | Newsgroups | Help |

Article 104 of 109 in alt.assassination.jfk
Re: Why Is This Theory Such A Popular One?
Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
Today 5:16 PM

References:

[googlegroups.com] [googlegroups.com] [posc.mu.edu] [googlegroups.com] [googlegroups.com] [googlegroups.com] [posc.mu.edu]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:14:56 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/5/2015 9:03 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 9:09:25 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 11:13:42 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 1:58:44 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> On 2/1/2015 6:52 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 10:02:45 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/30/2015 10:34 PM, stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 4:03:48 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 1/29/2015 6:11 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:26:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2015 10:57 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 5:55:04 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chris still doesn't get the point. Might as well chalk him/her up as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "lost cause".
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>         I got your point long ago, and saw immediately the logic error and
> >>>>>>>>>>> replied with the description of your error.  You're still fooling around
> >>>>>>>>>>> and cannot figure out your error.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>         Now, I'll take it very slowly this time and see if you can figure out
> >>>>>>>>>>> what I'm talking about:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>         First, multiple shooters stationed around Dealey Plaza will do a better
> >>>>>>>>>>> job of guaranteeing that the target will be killed.  That's important
> >>>>>>>>>>> because as POTUS, JFK could use all those resources to chase down all the
> >>>>>>>>>>> plotters and have them prosecuted.  Second, For the safety of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> plotters, it is far wiser to have a single 'lone nut' that was guilty (or
> >>>>>>>>>>> seemed to be) of the crime.  It would be stupid to have multiple 'patsies'
> >>>>>>>>>>> to blame for the crime.  That would entail another murder.  Third, the
> >>>>>>>>>>> 'lone nut' that is to be set up to take the fall for the crime must be
> >>>>>>>>>>> killed as soon as possible so that he can't somehow get out of the charge
> >>>>>>>>>>> of murder against him, and possibly give away some important piece of
> >>>>>>>>>>> evidence.  Fourth, as the murder completes, you have to make sure that all
> >>>>>>>>>>> bases were covered as to there seeming to be a single shooter, and NOT
> >>>>>>>>>>> multiple shooters.  So you have your minions looking around for anything
> >>>>>>>>>>> out of whack, and raking care of it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>         Now, if you still can't understand the above detailed explanation,
> >>>>>>>>>>> please give the detail of your thinking re: multiple shooter, single
> >>>>>>>>>>> patsy, and explain why that won't work.  I'm sure there is a meeting
> >>>>>>>>>>> ground here somewhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> These nuts never study history and look at other assassinations.
> >>>>>>>>>> In the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the mastermind was well in
> >>>>>>>>>> front of the motorcade, signaling his conspirators. All the attempts
> >>>>>>>>>> from the rear failed due to technical problems. He eventually had to
> >>>>>>>>>> take the insurance shot from the front.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In the attempts on Hitler most of the failures were due to technical
> >>>>>>>>>> defects in otherwise brilliant plans. You can't account for every
> >>>>>>>>>> variable and you need backup plans.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In the Petit Clamart attempt on de Gaulle, the shooters at the rear
> >>>>>>>>>> missed seeing the late signal until after the car had passed them.
> >>>>>>>>>> Even shooting out the tires did no good and the car sped away. One
> >>>>>>>>>> shooter in the front barely missed de Gaulle's head and the other had
> >>>>>>>>>> his machine gun jam.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>      Notice how real conspiracies can be shown? Imaginary ones can only be
> >>>>>>>>> imagined.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Are you denying that the several attempts on de Gaulle were only
> >>>>>>>> imaginary? Do you understand that the Secret Service investigates hundreds
> >>>>>>>> of conspiracies every year? Are you saying none of those are real and the
> >>>>>>>> investigations are just a hoax?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Are you denying that there haven't been lone assassins in history?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have cited many lone nut assassins.
> >>>>>> About half of the assassination attempt on US Presidents have been by
> >>>>>> lone nuts.
> >>>>>> The more often they are by lone nuts the more often they fail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>      What impact does that have on the ones that succeed?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Some people learn from mistakes.
> >>>
> >>>    Certainly Oswald did, failed to assassinate Walker but succeeded with
> >>> Kennedy.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Everyone acknowledges that there have been and are conspiracies.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, you haven't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Those of us who believe Oswald alone shot JFK don't cite Czolgosz or
> >>>>>>> Guiteau or Hinckley to support our arguments. Why do you insist on
> >>>>>>> pointing to these irrelevant examples to support your claim?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Once again: For example is not proof.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of either argument.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     What failed was the effort to blame Oswald for the shooting at Walker.
> >
> >    Oh no, he was blamed alright.
> >
> >> Since the bullet used was a STEEL jacketed bullet,
> >
> >    Show the ballistic report that established it as such.
> >
> 
> You don't even know what a ballistics report is.

  You don`t even know whether I do or not.

> >> it wasn't of the type
> >> that was used in the MC rifle, which Oswald never fired:
> >
> >    You are shooting blanks again.
> >
> >> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9nC-kt8dxgg/UH85l_CwkiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/lHpnNZTQS_c/s1600/WALKER+BULLET+STEEL+JACKETED.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >>     The authorities showed the bullet they said was fired at Walker,
> >
> >    You don`t even read your own sources. Walker saw the bullet on TV.
> 
> SHOW ME the bullet Walker saw on TV.

  Do you want to be shown Walker watching it on TV also?

> >
> >> and
> >> Walker saw it and knew it wasn't the right bullet.
> >
> >    You fail to understand his objection. You really aren`t cut out for
> > this.
> >
> >>   And when Walker sent
> >> letters to the authorities to withdraw the phony bullet, they ignored him.
> >
> >    It was clear that bullet he saw on TV was not the bullet Walker saw on
> > TV. Walker`s objection was that the bullet was mangled enough, but the
> > bullet in evidence recovered from his house was mangled.
> >
> 
> His objection was based on thinking it was a steel-jacketed bullet which 
> is what the cops said.

  Another person who either didn`t read the letter Walker wrote, or who
read it and couldn`t understand it.

> >> I guess they liked the evidence against Oswald, even though it was phony:
> >
> >    All you can do is guess. You can`t even make informed guesses because you don`t understand the evidence.
> >> http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
> >

| Junk All | Newsgroups | Help |

Contact Information tomnln@cox.net

Page Visited

Hit Counter

Times