The Walker Case

[Jon Banks]

The Walker note was in Russian and Oswald's hand writing.

Allegedly. Not all handwriting experts agreed with that conclusion. And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.


Although the FBI’s handwriting expert considered that the note was in Oswald’s handwriting (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.437), only one of the three experts who were consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered the note to be authentic (HSCA Report, appendix vol.8, pp.232–246).

Wasn't the Walker note secreted in a Book? And I hope you aren't throwing kindly Quaker Ruth Paine under a bus?

I'm not accusing Paine of anything. I'm only saying we have no way to rule out the possibility that the note was planted there (by someone if not Ruth or Marina) after Oswald was killed.

The police and FBI didn't find the note the first time they searched the Paine home while Oswald was alive.

Even if the note is authentic, it's difficult to prove its authenticity for those reasons.

So no comment on Marina's knowing about the close proximity of the Church and the mid week meeting? Duly noted.

I've stated several times in this thread and others that I don't believe Marina is a reliable witness. Given how many things she was wrong about or didn't remember, I don't think its intellectually honest to ignore her inconsistencies and bad memory.

Regardless of what Lee told Marina (or didn't tell her), no one can prove that he was anywhere near Walker's home on the night of the incident. There's no eyewitnesses or physical evidence connecting him to the crime scene.

[Charles Collins]

Allegedly. Not all handwriting experts agreed with that conclusion. And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.


Although the FBI’s handwriting expert considered that the note was in Oswald’s handwriting (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.437), only one of the three experts who were consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered the note to be authentic (HSCA Report, appendix vol.8, pp.232–246).



I'm not accusing Paine of anything. I'm only saying we have no way to rule out the possibility that the note was planted there (by someone if not Ruth or Marina) after Oswald was killed.

The police and FBI didn't find the note the first time they searched the Paine home while Oswald was alive.

Even if the note is authentic, it's more difficult to prove its authenticity for those reasons.



I've stated several times in this thread and others that I don't believe Marina is a reliable witness. Given how many things she was wrong about or didn't remember, I don't think its intellectually honest to ignore her inconsistencies and bad memory.

Regardless of what Lee told Marina (or didn't tell her), no one can prove that he was anywhere near Walker's home on the night of the incident. There's no eyewitnesses or physical evidence connecting him to the crime scene.

And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.

Paper absorbs the oils that fingerprints consist of. They don’t last very long because of this. LHO reportedly hadn’t seen the note in many months because Marina hid it from him soon after the Walker incident. We therefore would not expect to see any of LHO’s fingerprints on that piece of paper. And the fact that none were found only supports Marina’s testimony.


I'm not accusing Paine of anything. I'm only saying we have no way to rule out the possibility that the note was planted there (by someone if not Ruth or Marina) after Oswald was killed.

It is not necessary to rule out all possibilities in order to convict someone of a crime. Just reasonable doubt. There is no probable evidence (aka: reasons) that suggests that anyone planted the note. So using your lame excuse for not believing the evidence is pure speculation and could not be considered by a jury.


The police and FBI didn't find the note the first time they searched the Paine home while Oswald was alive.

Marina hid it well. And it is reasonable to believe that, since the book was among Ruth Paine’s books in the kitchen, the investigators could have assumed it belonged to Ruth and left it alone.


Even if the note is authentic, it's more difficult to prove its authenticity for those reasons.

Those “reasons” are not legitimate reasons as I have just shown.

[Martin Weidmann]

And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.

Paper absorbs the oils that fingerprints consist of. They don’t last very long because of this. LHO reportedly hadn’t seen the note in many months because Marina hid it from him soon after the Walker incident. We therefore would not expect to see any of LHO’s fingerprints on that piece of paper. And the fact that none were found only supports Marina’s testimony.


I'm not accusing Paine of anything. I'm only saying we have no way to rule out the possibility that the note was planted there (by someone if not Ruth or Marina) after Oswald was killed.

It is not necessary to rule out all possibilities in order to convict someone of a crime. Just reasonable doubt. There is no probable evidence (aka: reasons) that suggests that anyone planted the note. So using your lame excuse for not believing the evidence is pure speculation and could not be considered by a jury.


The police and FBI didn't find the note the first time they searched the Paine home while Oswald was alive.

Marina hid it well. And it is reasonable to believe that, since the book was among Ruth Paine’s books in the kitchen, the investigators could have assumed it belonged to Ruth and left it alone.


Even if the note is authentic, it's more difficult to prove its authenticity for those reasons.

Those “reasons” are not legitimate reasons as I have just shown.

There is no probable evidence (aka: reasons) that suggests that anyone planted the note.

A lack of such "probable evidence" doesn't automatically mean that the document is authentic, especially when the experts can not agree on that authenticity.

[John Mytton]

The Walker note was in Russian and Oswald's hand writing.

Allegedly. Not all handwriting experts agreed with that conclusion. And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.

Although the FBI’s handwriting expert considered that the note was in Oswald’s handwriting (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.437), only one of the three experts who were consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered the note to be authentic (HSCA Report, appendix vol.8, pp.232–246).

For a start you are wrong and the quote that you acquired from some Conspiracy book or web site is right but carefully worded to lead people like you astray and it worked. EDIT And it looks like Martin took the same bait!

The three Russian writings that were examined 23, 56 and 57



McNally says that the writing corresponds with the writing of Oswald


Purtell is unable to give a definitive opinion because he is not familiar with this language but says there are similarities with a large section of Oswald's writing.


Scott didn't even examine 23, 56 or 57


https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0114b.htm

And Oswald's fingerprints weren't on the note.

There could be any number of reasons why there were no legible fingerprints and isn't proof.

Btw I'm getting a bit tired of doing your fact checking and correcting your mistakes like the Easter Saturday rifle incident. Do some more research before you blindly quote some conspiracy nonsense. Thanks in advance.

JohnM

[Jon Banks]

It is not necessary to rule out all possibilities in order to convict someone of a crime. Just reasonable doubt. There is no probable evidence (aka: reasons) that suggests that anyone planted the note.

It can't be disproven that someone planted the note because of the circumstances in which it was found. How did the Dallas PD not find it the first time they searched Ruth Paine's home? That's an obvious question that any Defense Attorney would ask.

Weird how all the normal standards of evidence don't apply to LN'ers in the JFK assassination case. There's no judge who would allow that note to be used as evidence in the Walker case.

Even if the note is authentic, it's more difficult to prove its authenticity for those reasons.

Those “reasons” are not legitimate reasons as I have just shown.

You're entitled to your own opinion but in a legal sense, what I'm saying is 100% true. It's not a solid piece of evidence. Even a Public Defender would be able to shoot it down in court.

It's perfectly fine for you to conclude that Oswald probably shot at Walker. I don't know if he did or didn't do it. There's not enough evidence to conclude that he did it.

[Jon Banks]

Btw I'm getting a bit tired of doing your fact checking and correcting your mistakes like the Easter Saturday rifle incident. Do some more research before you blindly quote some conspiracy nonsense. Thanks in advance.

JohnM

Get back to me when you can show some direct evidence that proves that Oswald was at or near Walker's home at the time of the incident.

[Richard Smith]

Get back to me when you can show some direct evidence that proves that Oswald was at or near Walker's home at the time of the incident.

Oswald confessed to his own wife.  Vague and unsupported allegations that Marina lied about this don't rebut this fact.  Marina did not come forth with this information until the evidence was discovered.  She was trying to protect herself from any claim that she should have known that Oswald was a dangerous person capable of a political assassination prior to Nov. 22.  Her every incentive was not to acknowledge this fact but the evidence left her no choice.  The note and pictures of Walker home found among Oswald's possessions are highly incriminatory.  Logic alone links the crimes.  There have probably not been two similar types of sniper attacks on public figures in the history of Dallas.  That they would be unrelated when they occurred within just a few months of one another would be an incredible coincidence.  If you accept that Oswald assassinated JFK, the evidence and circumstances of his responsibility for the Walker attempt is the logical conclusion.  If Oswald had lived to be questioned about the event, there would likely have been even more evidence since he likely would have followed the pattern when interrogated about the JFK assassination by lying.  He would have been asked about his whereabouts on the night.  What is he going to say?  We don't know but his "alibi" would not have checked out etc.  There is no real doubt about Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting.

[Jon Banks]

Oswald confessed to his own wife.

Her testimony matters, but it doesn't prove anything. Not sure why this is such a difficult thing for some to grasp.

In any other case, that alone wouldn't be enough evidence for an arrest if there's no proof that the suspect was at or near the crime scene at the time when the crime was committed. She wasn't an eyewitness to the crime. For all we know, the suspect could've lied to the witness (assuming the witness told the truth).

It matters for something but legally, it's not proof.

She was trying to protect herself from any claim that she should have known that Oswald was a dangerous person capable of a political assassination prior to Nov. 22.  Her every incentive was not to acknowledge this fact but the evidence left her no choice.  [/b]Walker home found

You could be right but we don't know if your speculation is correct. Only Marina knows. Don't confuse your speculation with proven information.

Because of her inconsistent statements, poor memory, and the fact that she was an immigrant who feared prison or deportation, it's reasonable to be skeptical of her statements that incriminated her deceased husband.

The note that Lee left behind didn't have a date, didn't mention Walker, and wasn't discovered by the police when they searched Ruth Paine's home. It was found after Oswald was killed. Handwriting can be forged. There's tons of reasonable doubt surrounding the note.

I don't think it would be admitted as evidence if Oswald hypothetically were tried in court for the Walker shooting. Marina wouldn't be allowed to be a witness either.

So you know I'm right when I say he probably wouldn't have been convicted of the crime based on the available evidence.