The Oswald Wallet Paradox

[Michael Walton]

Wasn't aware it was five. Amazing.

[Richard Smith]

It's laughable to suggest that whomever planted the wallet could not have anticipated that Oswald might have another wallet on him when arrested.

Absolutely, Dick! For 99% of the male population who go around with one, single wallet in their back pocket, it's just pure coincidence that the guy who was accused of killing the president and a policeman JUST SO HAPPENED to be walking around with two wallets. The same guy who supposedly was just some crazed schmuck who said he "...emphatically denied these charges."

Hahahaha!!!

This is pretty simple.  If someone planted Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene to frame him, it would not take Nostradamus for them to know that Oswald would likely have a second wallet on him when arrested or killed.  That would not have been cause to abandon their plan to "find" an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene.  Such a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene would have been fantastic evidence to link Oswald to that crime.  A wallet in his pocket upon arrest provides no probative value.  But it gets even better.  Whomever planted the wallet at the Tippit scene in this fairy tale is also apparently in a position to suppress one of the wallets.  And which one do they decide to suppress?  Wait for it - wait for it - the wallet they themselves have planted with its extreme probative value!  HA HA HA to that.  That's ridiculous as a narrative if you give more than three seconds of thought.  Unfortunately, it's not Oswald's wallet.  If the DPD had said it was found there, however, nuts would be here arguing that he wouldn't have left it at the scene with profound arguments like "Oswald's wallet.  LOL." What difference does it make in this context how many wallets Oswald owned and kept at home etc?  None.

[John Iacoletti]

A wallet in his pocket upon arrest provides no probative value.

Probably the most coherent thing "Richard" has ever said.

If the DPD had said it was found there, however, nuts would be here arguing that he wouldn't have left it at the scene with profound arguments like "Oswald's wallet.  LOL."

Ridiculous unproven assertions like "Oswald's rifle" don't need profound arguments to be laughed at.  What they need is for the people making the assertions to prove them.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is pretty simple.  If someone planted Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene to frame him, it would not take Nostradamus for them to know that Oswald would likely have a second wallet on him when arrested or killed.  That would not have been cause to abandon their plan to "find" an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene.  Such a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene would have been fantastic evidence to link Oswald to that crime.  A wallet in his pocket upon arrest provides no probative value.  But it gets even better.  Whomever planted the wallet at the Tippit scene in this fairy tale is also apparently in a position to suppress one of the wallets.  And which one do they decide to suppress?  Wait for it - wait for it - the wallet they themselves have planted with its extreme probative value!  HA HA HA to that.  That's ridiculous as a narrative if you give more than three seconds of thought.  Unfortunately, it's not Oswald's wallet.  If the DPD had said it was found there, however, nuts would be here arguing that he wouldn't have left it at the scene with profound arguments like "Oswald's wallet.  LOL." What difference does it make in this context how many wallets Oswald owned and kept at home etc?  None.

But it gets even better.  Whomever planted the wallet at the Tippit scene in this fairy tale is also apparently in a position to suppress one of the wallets.  And which one do they decide to suppress?  Wait for it - wait for it - the wallet they themselves have planted with its extreme probative value!  HA HA HA to that.  That's ridiculous as a narrative if you give more than three seconds of thought.

Who said that the wallet found at the Tippit scene is the one that was suppressed?

Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him during the ride to the police station. The next day he is interviewed on television and asked what he found in the wallet to which he replies; the usual stuff; a credit card and a driver's license. Not a word about any document with the name Hidell on it. Bentley never files a report about what he found in the wallet, nor does he testify before WC or even gave them even a statement. There isn't a word on paper anywhere about the content of the wallet Bentley took from Oswald. Think about that, for a minute!!!!!

On the other hand, FBI agent Barrett is on record saying that Captain Westbrook was looking at a wallet at the Tippit murder scene and asked him if he had ever heard of Oswald or Hidell. FBI Hosty confirms in his book that Barrett told him about it and DPD officer Croy confirmed, prior to his death, that he was the one who found that wallet. But for Richard that's not corroboration. It's just three cops not telling the truth...

So, what happened next? Gus Rose had a day off and is called back to work. When he gets to the station, Oswald had just been brought in. Somebody (nobody knows who!) gave Rose a wallet and bingo, now there suddenly is one wallet which contains no credit card or drivers license but it does contain a fake ID for Hidell.... Go figure.

Now, I wonder what could have happened there.... Who was the person that gave Gus Rose the wallet? Who was the officer that presented the wallet to the evidence room, and why wasn't that Paul Bentley, as it should have been?

Guys like Richard will ignore and deny these facts (because that's what the are, as it is all on record in one way or another) and call them a "fairy tale" rather than trying to explain what possibly happened here. It must be easier for him to just laugh it off and dream up some so-called "logic" why it couldn't have happened that way.

Unfortunately, it's not Oswald's wallet.

It may not have been, but how would you know that?

So, who did it belong to? It wasn't Tippit's because his wallet was identified by Marie Tippit and is at the National Archives. If it belonged to somebody else, why is there no record of anybody claiming it or of the wallet being returned?

Now all we have to do is wait for another rant by Richard telling us that it is all too stupid and none of it could have happened.

[Jerry Freeman]

Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him during the ride to the police station. The next day he is interviewed on television and asked what he found in the wallet to which he replies; the usual stuff; a credit card and a driver's license.

Was that a Visa or Mastercard? State of Texas or Louisiana drivers license?
There is a Living History with Paul Bentley by the Sixth Floor Museum on youtube but I can't get it to upload here for some reason.
Find it and listen to his  with 6th Fl curator Steven [Fagen]? swallowing every spoonful. 
If you watch that video, at 8:20 Bentley states that while collecting evidence at the Tippit scene... some patrol division captain came and told him
that "We've looked everywhere for Oswald but we just got a report that there was a suspect at the Texas Theater..."
I am still wondering why they would have been looking for Oswald in particular at that particular time?
 

[Izraul Hidashi]

Again, there is no confirmation that this is Oswald's wallet.  You have a film/picture of the DPD at the scene looking at some object that appears to be a wallet or something similar.  It could belong anyone there including a witness or perhaps be something like Tippit's citation book.  It makes no sense to suggest someone was trying to frame Oswald but for some unspecified reason the DPD would suppress an Oswald wallet found at the murder scene.  That would be fantastic evidence against Oswald.  His wallet left at the scene of the crime. 

It's laughable to suggest that whomever planted the wallet could not have anticipated that Oswald might have another wallet on him when arrested.  And when in the apparent position to suppress one of these two wallets, they would decide to suppress the one planted at the murder scene! Wow - what a plan.  In which those framing Oswald suppress great evidence of his guilt that they planted at the murder scene for that very purpose.  Logic dictates it's not Oswald's wallet but belongs to someone else at the scene.  Likely a witness or Tippit.

Okay, when you say there's no confirmation I assume you mean that you didn't look at the photo I posted. What does it say? The cop who found it wrote ...

"First on the scene. Recovered Oswald's wallet."  So which part of that statement isn't confirmation that they claimed it was Oswald's wallet? Again, no one is saying that it WAS Oswald's wallet. Except for the police who were trying to frame him. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what's so hard about this? The cops did in fact try to claim they found Oswald's wallet. Why do people keep trying to deny it? The proof is here. It's there.

I get why the Oswald swallowers want to keep ignoring it. Because it proves them wrong. But that's life. Facts are facts. We're trying put things together, not validate Oswald swallowers.

[Richard Smith]

Okay, when you say there's no confirmation I assume you mean that you didn't look at the photo I posted. What does it say? The cop who found it wrote ...

"First on the scene. Recovered Oswald's wallet."  So which part of that statement isn't confirmation that they claimed it was Oswald's wallet? Again, no one is saying that it WAS Oswald's wallet. Except for the police who were trying to frame him. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what's so hard about this? The cops did in fact try to claim they found Oswald's wallet. Why do people keep trying to deny it? The proof is here. It's there.

I get why the Oswald swallowers want to keep ignoring it. Because it proves them wrong. But that's life. Facts are facts. We're trying put things together, not validate Oswald swallowers.

That's a hell of a way to frame someone by suppressing great evidence of their guilt.  His wallet found at the murder scene. This story originates from FBI agent Barrett many years later but he did not mention it in his own report on Nov. 22.  He did not mention it in his WC testimony.  He would have known the probative value of a suspect's wallet found at the murder scene.  Even decades later he made clear that he never handled the wallet or ever saw its contents.  His recollection is that he was asked about Oswald/Hidell by Westbrook as he looked through a wallet.  It's entirely possible he saw the DPD handling a wallet at the scene, and after Oswald's arrest assumed that this wallet had been dropped by the murderer who he later learned was Oswald.  Thus, he conflated events decades later and it becomes "Oswald's wallet" in his memory. 

Here is where you can think for yourself though.  If Oswald's wallet had been dropped at the murder scene - either by Oswald because he was the killer or someone else trying to frame him - what is the first thing the DPD would have done when they discovered it?  Think real hard it's not difficult.  They would have radioed in an APB for a suspect whose name is found in the wallet (i.e. Oswald).  However, no such call was ever made.  At the very least, someone would have mentioned this highly probative evidence in a written report after the fact.  They didn't.  Not Barrett or any of the DPD officers at the scene.  If the purpose of the wallet was to frame Oswald, then any wallet found at the scene with his ID would not have been hidden by the DPD (certainly not by anyone who had left it there to frame him!) but trumpeted to the entire world as evidence of Oswald's guilt.  It wasn't.  What does that tell you?  It wasn't Oswald's wallet.