His Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities, however, made it more difficult for him to obtain other employment. A placement interviewer of the Louisiana Department of Labor who had previously interviewed Oswald, saw him on television and heard a radio debate in which he engaged on August 21, 1963. He consulted with his supervisor and “it was determined that we should not undertake to furnish employment references for him.”[C7-293] Ironically, he failed to get a job in another photographic firm after his return to Dallas in October of 1963, because the president of the photographic firm for which he had previously worked told the prospective employer that Oswald was “kinda peculiar sometimes and that he had some knowledge of the Russian language,” and that he “may be a damn Communist. I can’t tell you. If I was you, I wouldn’t hire him.”[C7-294] The plant superintendent of the new firm testified that one of the employees of the old firm “implied that Oswald’s fellow employees did not like him because he was propagandizing and had been seen reading a foreign newspaper.” As a result Oswald was not hired.[C7-295] He subsequently found a job with the Texas School Book Depository for which he performed his duties satisfactorily.[C7-296]
Attack on General Walker
The Commission has concluded that on April 10, 1963, Oswald shot at Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army), demonstrating once again his propensity to act dramatically and, in this instance violently, in furtherance of his beliefs. The shooting occurred 2 weeks before Oswald moved to New Orleans and a few days after he had been discharged by the photographic firm. As indicated in chapter IV, Oswald had been planning his attack on General Walker for at least 1[C7-297] and perhaps as much as 2 months.[C7-298] He outlined his plans in a notebook and studied them at considerable length before his attack.[C7-299] He also studied Dallas bus schedules to prepare for his later use of buses to travel to and from General Walker’s house.[C7-300] Sometime after March 27, but according to Marina Oswald, prior to April 10, 1963,[C7-301] Oswald posed for two pictures with his recently acquired rifle and pistol, a copy of the March 24, 1963, issue of the Worker, and the March 11, 1963, issue of the Militant.[C7-302] He told his wife that he wanted to send the pictures to the Militant and he also asked her to keep one of the pictures for his daughter, June.[C7-303]
Following his unsuccessful attack on Walker, Oswald returned home. He had left a note for his wife telling her what to do in case he were apprehended, as well as his notebook and the pictures of himself holding the rifle.[C7-304] She testified that she was agitated because she had found the note in Oswald’s room, where she had gone, contrary to his instructions, after she became worried about his absence.[C7-305] She indicated that she had no advance knowledge of Oswald’s plans, that she became quite angry when Oswald told her what he had done, and that she made him promise never to repeat such a performance. She said that she kept the note to use against him “if something like that should be repeated again.”[C7-306] When asked if Oswald requested the note back she testified that:
He forgot about it. But apparently after he thought that what he had written in his book might be proof against him, and he destroyed it. [the book][C7-307]
She later gave the following testimony [*indicates that the witness answered without using the interpreter]:
Q. After he brought the rifle home, then, he showed you the book?
*A. Yes.
Q. And you said it was not a good idea to keep this book?
*A. Yes.
Q. And then he burned the book?
*A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask him why he had not destroyed the book before he actually went to shoot General Walker?
A. It never came to me, myself, to ask him that question.[C7-308]
Marina Oswald’s testimony indicates that her husband was not particularly concerned about his continued possession of the most incriminating sort of evidence.[C7-309] If he had been successful and had been apprehended even for routine questioning, his apartment would undoubtedly have been searched, and his role would have been made clear by the evidence which he had left behind. Leaving the note and picture as he did would seem to indicate that he had considered the possibility of capture. Possibly he might have wanted to be caught, and wanted his involvement made clear if he was in fact apprehended. Even after his wife told him to destroy the notebook he removed at least some of the pictures which had been pasted in it and saved them among his effects, where they were found after the assassination.[C7-310] His behavior was entirely consistent with his wife’s testimony that:
I asked him what for he was making all these entries in the book and he answered that he wanted to leave a complete record so that all the details would be in it.
* * * * *
I am guessing that perhaps he did it to appear to be a brave man in case he were arrested, but that is my supposition * * *[C7-311]
The attempt on General Walker’s life deserves close attention in any consideration of Oswald’s possible motive for the assassination and the trail of evidence he left behind him on that occasion. While there are differences between the two events as far as Oswald’s actions and planning are concerned, there are also similarities that should be considered. The items which Oswald left at home when he made his attack on Walker suggest a strong concern for his place in history. If the attack had succeeded and Oswald had been caught, the pictures showing him with his rifle and his Communist and Socialist Worker’s Party newspapers would probably have appeared on the front pages of newspapers or magazines all over the country, as, in fact, one of them did appear after the assassination.[C7-312] The circumstances of the attack on Walker coupled with other indications that Oswald was concerned about his place in history[C7-313] and with the circumstances surrounding the assassination, have led the Commission to believe that such concern is an important factor to consider in assessing possible motivation for the assassination.