Gen. Walker and Supreme Court Decision

[John Mytton]

Why would someone need to hack up a large section of the photo to remove a relatively small number plate and wouldn't someone just black it out with a pen/marker or use a sharp knife because it wouldn't be easy to tear out a very small section of photographic paper?
The top edges of the photo has water damage which has affected the entire top half of the image and if you look around the hole in the car, a similar water stain has started from the edges which means that the hole was there long enough to receive similar water damage and therefore the cut-out wasn't just done by the cops when the photo of Walker's house was discovered.





JohnM

[Walt Cakebread]

Why would someone need to hack up a large section of the photo to remove a relatively small number plate and wouldn't someone just black it out with a pen/marker or use a sharp knife because it wouldn't be easy to tear out a very small section of photographic paper?
The top edges of the photo has water damage which has affected the entire top half of the image and if you look around the hole in the car, a similar water stain has started from the edges which means that the hole was there long enough to receive similar water damage and therefore the cut-out wasn't just done by the cops when the photo of Walker's house was discovered.






JohnM

Why would someone need to hack up a large section of the photo to remove a relatively small number plate and wouldn't someone just black it out with a pen/marker or use a sharp knife because it wouldn't be easy to tear out a very small section of photographic paper?

Because whoever destroyed the license plate did it hastily and surreptitiously.....with a wet thumbnail.....

[John Mytton]

Because whoever destroyed the license plate did it hastily and surreptitiously.....with a wet thumbnail.....

Surely "whoever" would realize that the shade and make of car were still clearly visible and a match could easily be narrowed down and considering the photo wasn't essential to convicting Oswald, wouldn't it be easier and safer to just lose the photo?



JohnM

[Jerry Freeman]

Surely "whoever" would realize that the shade and make of car were still clearly visible and a match could easily be narrowed down and considering the photo wasn't essential to convicting Oswald, wouldn't it be easier and safer to just lose the photo?

The Oswald stalked Walker story would also be 'lost' wouldn't you think?

[Tom Scully]

The Oswald stalked Walker story would also be 'lost' wouldn't you think?

You seem to be struggling to grasp this....

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60411&relPageId=104&search=1752_iglehart
2. FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 236, pg 104
Found in: FBI Oswald Headquarters File (105-82555)
12/23/6 Minneapolis airtel to New Orleans 12/31/6 New-Orleans letter to Minneapolis 1/21/64 " For the information of all offices, JOHN MARTIN, ;L... f 1752
Iglehart, Apt. 4, St.

....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23168-jack-t-martin/?tab=comments#comment-336512
Paul Trejo - October 31, 2016

....I implored Gary Mack to set up an interview with Jack T. Martin, but Gary told me that the sole condition for obtaining the Jack Martin film was that Jack T. Martin must never be contacted by anybody at any time. So, Gary refused to give me Martin's contact info....

......

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/36908/john-t-martin-film

[Walt Cakebread]

Why would someone need to hack up a large section of the photo to remove a relatively small number plate and wouldn't someone just black it out with a pen/marker or use a sharp knife because it wouldn't be easy to tear out a very small section of photographic paper?
The top edges of the photo has water damage which has affected the entire top half of the image and if you look around the hole in the car, a similar water stain has started from the edges which means that the hole was there long enough to receive similar water damage and therefore the cut-out wasn't just done by the cops when the photo of Walker's house was discovered.





JohnM

This is an excellent copy of the photo that Mytton thinks is the exact same photo that the DPD photographed among Lee Oswald's purloined possessions at the Dallas police station on the night of 11/22- 23/ 63.  Mytton thinks it's the same photo but the hole in the photo where the license plate would be isn't visible because the background behind the hole is light colored like the color of the 57 Chevy. 

Clearly it's NOT the same photo of Walker's house because not only is there a hole in the photo where the license plate would be but there is also a very visible crease just to the left of the car.    That crease ( caused by folding the photo) would be visible in the DPD purloined evidence photo if it was the same photo.    And there is NO CREASE on the DPD purloined evidence photo.  (see below)



There can be no doubt that Marina was correct when she said that there was NO HOLE  in the photo when the FBI showed her a Walker house photo in early December.  Obviously the photo was damaged AFTER the FBI displayed the photo to Marina.

[Tom Scully]

The photo in Curry's book has the same cut-out in the same place, it's the background behind the cut-out that has changed.

https://i.postimg.cc/PqXKvFQp/walker-plate1.gif

JohnM

You should credit Dr. John McAdams, from his book, "How to think about claims...."

Exactly two years after the Warren Report was published. Wesley Liebler voiced his concerns about the torn out license plate photo in a letter to FBI Director Hoover.
Liebler asked if the FBI had interviewed Charles Klihr, a T.I. employee who owned an identical 1957 Chevy,  was a Walker volunteer and frequent Walker visitor.

Pg. 1 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62389&relPageId=138
Pg. 2 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62389&search=surrey_and+klihr#relPageId=139


Hoover's response to Liebler was, the FBI turned over the records of investigative work to the National Archive, make your inquiry there.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62389&search=surrey_and+klihr#relPageId=140

Hoover's internal response was, "don't give Wesley Liebler "nuthin'."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62389&search=surrey_and+klihr#relPageId=141

[Walt Cakebread]

You should credit Dr. John McAdams, from his book, "How to think about claims...."

Exactly two years after the Warren Report was published. Wesley Liebler voiced his concerns about the torn out license plate photo in a letter to FBI Director Hoover.
Liebler asked if the FBI had interviewed Charles Klihr, a T.I. employee who owned an identical 1957 Chevy,  was a Walker volunteer and frequent Walker visitor.

Pg. 1 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62389&relPageId=138
Pg. 2 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62389&search=surrey_and+klihr#relPageId=139


Hoover's response to Liebler was, the FBI turned over the records of investigative work to the National Archive, make your inquiry there.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62389&search=surrey_and+klihr#relPageId=140

Hoover's internal response was, "don't give Wesley Liebler "nuthin'."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62389&search=surrey_and+klihr#relPageId=141

Hoover's internal response was, "don't give Wesley Liebler "nuthin'."
 Yes, and his letter to Liebler basically told Liebler to call his file clerk Helen Waite....  If you want that information Mr Liebler... Please go to Helen Waite.

Thank you for your post Tom....   As we can see this issue was never resolved...  The FBI knew who owned that 57 Chevy and so did Walker.    Obviously Lee took that photo to establish that "someone" ( probably an FBI agent) was visiting Walker, and the photo verified that fact. Incidentally, Did you know that Lee also took a nearly identical photo but in place of the 57 Chevy there was a 1953 Ford parked behind Walker's house?