The Walker Case

[Charles Collins]

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.


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.

It can't be disproven that someone planted the note because of the circumstances in which it was found.

What is so suspicious about Ruth Paine finding Marina’s book among her own books in her kitchen after Marina had left and apparently wasn’t planning to return? If I remember correctly, one of the investigators (possibly the interpreter) found the note in the book while looking through it. What is so suspicious about that? I think that your bias is showing through. You have no probable evidence that suggests the note was planted. Only your biased suspicions.


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.

I have already given you the most likely reason. Do you really think that the police should have looked through what was apparently Ruth Paine’s kitchen books? 


There's no judge who would allow that note to be used as evidence in the Walker case.

Why do you think a judge would not allow the note into evidence?       
It was in LHO’s handwriting according to the experts. It was relevant and probable evidence of LHO’s guilt. Marina confirms where, how, and when she found it  on the night of the Walker incident.


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.

None of your “objections” come even close to “shooting it down”. And your conjecture (without any probative evidence) is what would not be allowed in court.

[Martin Weidmann]

It is utterly amazing to see, time after time again, that LNs just don't care about the authenticity of a piece of evidence.

For them the mere assumption that it is authentic seems to be enough.

[Andrew Mason]

It is utterly amazing to see, time after time again, that LNs just don't care about that authenticity of a piece of evidence.

For them the mere assumption that it is authentic seems to be enough.

It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted unless every conceivable means by which the evidence could be falsified is considered and disproved. 

In the case of the letter, which was shown by handwriting experts to have been written by Oswald, any scenario in which it could have been planted leads to absurdities. How on Earth would anyone have been involved in planting something that could not have been made by anyone other than Oswald and have Marina identify it as such?

The fact that it was found accidentally strongly supports Marina's evidence that it is authentic.  It was deliberately hidden, as Marina later admitted, in a place where Oswald would not likely find it. Marina told Oswald that she would go to the police with it if Oswald ever reneged on his promise. 

[Martin Weidmann]

It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted unless every conceivable means by which the evidence could be falsified is considered and disproved. 

In the case of the letter, which was shown by handwriting experts to have been written by Oswald, any scenario in which it could have been planted leads to absurdities. How on Earth would anyone have been involved in planting something that could not have been made by anyone other than Oswald and have Marina identify it as such?

The fact that it was found accidentally strongly supports Marina's evidence that it is authentic.  It was deliberately hidden, as Marina later admitted, in a place where Oswald would not likely find it. Marina told Oswald that she would go to the police with it if Oswald ever reneged on his promise.

It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted

Even more amazing would be to assume that police officers always tell the truth and never purposely lie.

If and when a police officer finds a piece of evidence, adheres to the chain of custody requirements, places or has placed the evidence into the evidence room as quickly as possible and makes mention of the evidence he found in his report, there would indeed be no apparant reason to distrust that police officer's explanations. But that wouldn't prevent any defense lawyer to explore all options to discredit that officer.

However, when a police officer claims, long after the fact and the death of the suspect, that he found a piece of evidence, which he did not mention in any contemporary report and for which there is no chain of custody, then it is reasonable to question the trustworthiness of that officer.

In the case of the letter, which was shown by handwriting experts to have been written by Oswald,

No. That's a misrepresentation. An expert saying that there are similarities with Oswald's writing is not the same as saying that Oswald wrote it. With this in mind it is fair to say that the experts did not agree about the letter being written by Oswald

How on Earth would anyone have been involved in planting something that could not have been made by anyone other than Oswald

How on Earth did you reach that conclusion?

and have Marina identify it as such?

It doesn't matter much what Marina identified if she wasn't a reliable witness. The record is clear that Marina was anything but reliable and may well have had her own agenda after Lee's death. She hired a business manager shortly after the event. What kind of witness does that?

The fact that it was found accidentally strongly supports Marina's evidence that it is authentic.

What makes you think it was accidentally found?

It was deliberately hidden, as Marina later admitted, in a place where Oswald would not likely find it. Marina told Oswald that she would go to the police with it if Oswald ever reneged on his promise.

Nice story... for which your only source is Marina.

[Jon Banks]

It can't be disproven that someone planted the note because of the circumstances in which it was found.

What is so suspicious about Ruth Paine finding Marina’s book among her own books in her kitchen after Marina had left and apparently wasn’t planning to return? If I remember correctly, one of the investigators (possibly the interpreter) found the note in the book while looking through it. What is so suspicious about that? I think that your bias is showing through. You have no probable evidence that suggests the note was planted. Only your biased suspicions.

It's suspicious that it wasn't found by the police when the police searched her home. That doesn't mean the note was planted. It may not have been. It only means we can't rule out the possibility that it was planted given the circumstances of how and when the note was found.

I don't see a judge allowing the note to be admissible as evidence against Oswald in a hypothetical trial.

[Jon Banks]

It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted unless every conceivable means by which the evidence could be falsified is considered and disproved. 

In the case of the letter, which was shown by handwriting experts to have been written by Oswald, any scenario in which it could have been planted leads to absurdities. How on Earth would anyone have been involved in planting something that could not have been made by anyone other than Oswald and have Marina identify it as such?

The fact that it was found accidentally strongly supports Marina's evidence that it is authentic.  It was deliberately hidden, as Marina later admitted, in a place where Oswald would not likely find it. Marina told Oswald that she would go to the police with it if Oswald ever reneged on his promise.

"Found accidentally" days after General Walker went public with his suspicion that Oswald took a shot at him.

If it was found a few months or a few years later, that would be less of a coincidence.

[Jon Banks]

It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted

Even more amazing would be to assume that police officers always tell the truth and never purposely lie.

If and when a police officer finds a piece of evidence, adheres to the chain of custody requirements, places or has placed the evidence into the evidence room as quickly as possible and makes mention of the evidence he found in his report, there would indeed be no apparant reason to distrust that police officer's explanations. But that wouldn't prevent any defense lawyer to explore all options to discredit that officer.

However, when a police officer claims, long after the fact and the death of the suspect, that he found a piece of evidence, which he did not mention in any contemporary report and for which there is no chain of custody, then it is reasonable to question the trustworthiness of that officer.

In the case of the letter, which was shown by handwriting experts to have been written by Oswald,

No. That's a misrepresentation. An expert saying that there are similarities with Oswald's writing is not the same as saying that Oswald wrote it. With this in mind it is fair to say that the experts did not agree about the letter being written by Oswald

Your explanations are common sense in any other legal circumstances but not in the JFK assassination...

[Richard Smith]

It is utterly amazing to see, time after time again, that LNs just don't care about the authenticity of a piece of evidence.

For them the mere assumption that it is authentic seems to be enough.

What is utterly amazing is to suggest any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fabrication by suburban housewives without a scintilla of support.  Then turn around and deny that you are a CTer or have made any claim.   Here Marina is a liar.  The note is fabricated because it was found in a book.  We are supposed to believe the note, which instructed Marina on what to do in the event of Oswald's death or arrest, might not be related to the Walker shooting.  Those typing classes must have been dangerous.  Who doesn't have photos of General Walker's house in their possession?
It is laughable.  You should be embarrassed and beg the forgiveness of every person who reads your nonsense.