Jim DiEugenio on Caufield's General Walker book

[Jim DiEugenio]

At CTKA.net, my two part review of Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy is now posted. Part one is here:

http://www.ctka.net/2016/CaufieldPart1.html

and part two

http://www.ctka.net/2016/CaufieldPart2.html


Easily one of the most agenda driven, solipsistic exercise in recent years on the case. Probably the worst book since Ultimate Sacrifice.

[Albert Doyle]

Trejo must be in heaven. He must have an ornate lighted shrine in his living room for the book.


Just the latest version of mastermind...

[Drew Phipps]

I disagree. it's long and repetitive, but carefully and exhaustively researched. There was much new material that I'd never seen before. You may not like Caulfield's theory, but you can't fault his research.\

Jim: the links are messed up.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Yes you can, just read the review.

I mean look what he did with Loran Hall, for just one example.

[Albert Doyle]

I think you mean Western Cartridge instead of "Winchester" for the Carcano ammunition.

[Jim DiEugenio]

That will be corrected.

Drew, I went through every link and they all worked.

Which one did you have trouble with?

BTW, do you really think Oswald was on the sixth floor? Do you really buy the lying cuss Givens?

If you click through on that one, you will see three different ways in which he is exposed a a perjurer--Meagher, Speer, Jesus-- but Caufield used him anyway.

That is not careful research.

Neither is calling Oswald a Nazi with just about nothing to back it up.

[Drew Phipps]

The first link didn't work at all and the second link did not go to the second part. I haven't tried them tonight. I'll read the review tomorrow.

I think Oswald being conned into/told to fire a couple shots (not necessarily AT JFK) from the 6th floor is as plausible on its face as, say, twin Oswalds, or one Oswald that can run down 4 flights of stairs, without being seen or heard, and without apparent effort, or an Oswald that can walk in and out a glass door in tight quarters undetected in the presence of a number of people that know him...

If you read the chapter about Oswald's childhood, a right-wing mindset can be inferred from the data that Caulfield presented. It's not the only plausible mindset. We do know that he, from time to time, would profess contradictory beliefs. And a lot of the JFK "witnesses" turned out to be liars of one stripe or another. That doesn't mean that they ALWAYS lied.

[Jim DiEugenio]

They should be working now.

As per your idea above, two Oswalds, Caufield does not go for any of that stuff.

And as I said, his evidence about using the N word is simply a non starter as far as growing up in the south at that time. And his stuff about being anti semitic is even weaker than that.

I read all 790 pages. And took copious notes.

I feel like suing him for mental torture. What a pretentious hoax.

[Alan Ford]

Morning gentlemen,

Yes, the first/top link draws a 404 error message; however, the 2nd/bottom link landed/directed safely.

That said, An excellent review, Mr. DiEugenio, certainly a pretty fair assessment of Mr. Caufield's lengthy work. In an otherwise diligent effort on his behalf, he is obviously reaching to infer the wrongfully accused is a Nazi or took part in the General Walker episode, let alone shoot at him. As the saying goes way down in Texas, those dogs don't hunt.

[Drew Phipps]

The links are working now.

My "two Oswald's" reference above was not at Caulfield, but referring to John Armstrong, a thorough researcher whom I respect, and whose work is worth studying in detail, even if I can't quite agree with his theory. It's unfortunately true that otherwise well meaning people did use that phrase in the 50's and 60's. I would point out that that period's "mainstream" opinions concerning minorities would be shockingly out of place by today's standards.

Look at the example of General Walker. His racist beliefs were so ingrained that he was willing to basically commit (or foment) treason rather than accept overdue reform. And he wasn't that far, ideologically speaking, from the mainstream at that time. You didn't have to be a Nazi to be a bigot.

Alan: There is ample evidence to support, let's say, "probable cause" that Oswald did take a shot at Walker. Or at least at his house. Certainly, most of that evidence is suspect (ahem - Marina), but that's pretty much true at this point for all of the JFK evidence. Testimony from wife Marina about Oswald's alleged "admissions" would not have been allowed into evidence at a Texas criminal trial. Assuming that Walker would have denied at trial that the bullet in evidence was the same bullet as the one pried from his wall (as he did historically), and assuming Oswald refused to confess (as he did historically), without Marina's testimony, the trial would have probably resulted in an acquittal.

The most fundamental problem with linking Oswald to the Walker shooting (as an arranged publicity stunt, as Caulfield suggests), is the fact that there is no evidence that Walker and Oswald ever met each other. (Oswald attended a Walker speech.)