Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Iacoletti]

Very interesting, Martin. Thanks!

[Mitch Todd]

Bentley wrote: "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest." "Identification" is, of course, much more specific than "information."

Bla bla bla... your desperate need to score a minor point is duly noted.

"Turned over" implies a physical transfer. The only physical identification that Bentley could have turned over is what he took from Oswald,

Sure, and what exactly did Bentley turn over? He said it himself; "his identification", meaning of course Oswald's. Not a word about Hidell. Now, isn't that strange? Not a word about there being ID's in two different names and not knowing which one is the correct name. Nothing, nada, zero.... 

I didn't imagine that FBI agent Barrett said there was a wallet at the Tippit scene and that Westbrook asked him about Oswald and Hidell, did I? I also didn't imagine that Ron Reiland said it was a wallet (which he mistakenly believed belonged to Tippit), did I?

Did I imagine that none of the four officers who were with Oswald in the car said anything about a Hidell ID being in Oswald's wallet and that there is no DPD report that mentions finding such a vital piece of evidence?

Did I imagine that only Hill and Carroll made very vague comments about the Hidell ID in their WC testimony, some six months later, and that the WC didn't even call Bentley (the man who actually inspected the wallet) to testify about finding the Hidell ID? That would be the same Hill, btw, who also screwed up the chain of custody for the revolver, but that's another issue.

There is no evidentiary case to show that the Hidell ID was in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, but there most certainly is a circumstantial case (not a very strong one, I'll grant you that) that there was indeed a wallet found at the Tippit scene which contained Oswald's ID and the fake Hidell ID.

So, given this, yes I do think you should at least try to prove me wrong with something a bit more than assumptions about what was in the wallet Bentley gave to Baker and when he gave it to him.

Who? Oh you mean Bentley.... sure he knew better what he did that day than I do. He just failed miserably in communicating what he did and when he did it.

No, I'm simply saying that there are police procedures about how to handle evidence. There should at least be a conclusive chain of custody, starting with the person who actually found the item and there should be at least one report about the circumstances of the discovery. But wait, I just realized who I am talking to... now you are going to try to turn this into a pages long go nowhere discussion about police procedures, right? Well don't...because I am not going to go there.

Yes I do know that. It makes no difference. Your quote from Bentley's report made it clear that he turned over "his identification" to Lt. Baker and then he went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest. In other words, he gave the "identification" to Baker when he left the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose, at that time, was already talking to Oswald!

The crux of your position is summarized by two statements. The first is:

No, I'm simply saying that there are police procedures about how to handle evidence. There should at least be a conclusive chain of custody, starting with the person who actually found the item and there should be at least one report about the circumstances of the discovery.

The problem is, the existence of any particular procedure that you presume to exist in this particular matter is liable to be just that: nothing more than your own presumption. I don't really know what level of detail period-correct DPD police officers would have been expected to give in their reports. I don't thiyou do, either.

You then fall back on the ole standby: appeal to chain of custody, witch you habitually repeat as mantra at the scantest hint of ambiguity. Just like any other 2nd rate prison lawyer. Here too, I keep getting the feeling that you don't actually know how that part really worked, either.

Your second statement is:

Your quote from Bentley's report made it clear that he turned over "his identification" to Lt. Baker and then he went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest. In other words, he gave the "identification" to Baker when he left the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose, at that time, was already talking to Oswald!

Bentley's account on this point is pretty terse:

I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.

We only know that Bentley gave Baker the IDs (in whatever form) at some point before proceeding to Westbrook's office, but don't don't know how much time passed between Bentley showing up at the Robbery and Homicide office, Bentley handing over the ID, and Bentley leaving. Further, there is nothing in Bentley's report that directly relates when Oswald was turned over to when the ID was turned over. Bentley arrived with Oswald, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker. Like Bentley, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker brought Oswald to the Robbery and Homicide Bureau office. Walker stayed in Fritz's office with Oswald, McDonald left to have his injuries checked, while Hill and Carrol proceeded to Westbrook's office to do some report writing.

Hill's and Carrol's trajectory through City Hall matched Bentley's, and that the three arrived together in the first place. The implication should be clear: Bentley arrived in the Homicide office with Oswald, and turned over Oswald's ID's at the same time as their owner's

In short, the idea that Bentley cold not have turned over the ID's before Gus Rose got them from the unnamed officer is simply a fantasy.

[Martin Weidmann]

The crux of your position is summarized by two statements. The first is:

No, I'm simply saying that there are police procedures about how to handle evidence. There should at least be a conclusive chain of custody, starting with the person who actually found the item and there should be at least one report about the circumstances of the discovery.

The problem is, the existence of any particular procedure that you presume to exist in this particular matter is liable to be just that: nothing more than your own presumption. I don't really know what level of detail period-correct DPD police officers would have been expected to give in their reports. I don't thiyou do, either.

You then fall back on the ole standby: appeal to chain of custody, witch you habitually repeat as mantra at the scantest hint of ambiguity. Just like any other 2nd rate prison lawyer. Here too, I keep getting the feeling that you don't actually know how that part really worked, either.

Your second statement is:

Your quote from Bentley's report made it clear that he turned over "his identification" to Lt. Baker and then he went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest. In other words, he gave the "identification" to Baker when he left the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose, at that time, was already talking to Oswald!

Bentley's account on this point is pretty terse:

I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.

We only know that Bentley gave Baker the IDs (in whatever form) at some point before proceeding to Westbrook's office, but don't don't know how much time passed between Bentley showing up at the Robbery and Homicide office, Bentley handing over the ID, and Bentley leaving. Further, there is nothing in Bentley's report that directly relates when Oswald was turned over to when the ID was turned over. Bentley arrived with Oswald, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker. Like Bentley, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker brought Oswald to the Robbery and Homicide Bureau office. Walker stayed in Fritz's office with Oswald, McDonald left to have his injuries checked, while Hill and Carrol proceeded to Westbrook's office to do some report writing.

Hill's and Carrol's trajectory through City Hall matched Bentley's, and that the three arrived together in the first place. The implication should be clear: Bentley arrived in the Homicide office with Oswald, and turned over Oswald's ID's at the same time as their owner's

In short, the idea that Bentley cold not have turned over the ID's before Gus Rose got them from the unnamed officer is simply a fantasy.

I'll give you a bit of time to correct all your spelling mistakes and will only make this comment for now;

The sequence of events is pretty easy; Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him, having just arrived moments earlier. As soon as Oswald is brought in Rose talked to him;

Mr. BALL. Where did you go to work?
Mr. ROSE. I reported to the homicide office. It's room 317 at the city hall.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go then?
Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?

During that conversation Rose already had the wallet with two ID's in them;

Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out."

And Rose got the billfold containing the two ID's from "someone";

Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.

If that somebody had been Baker he would have recognized him.

So, now you try to fit in the "Bentley giving Baker the billfold" narrative....

This should be fun!

[John Iacoletti]

You then fall back on the ole standby: appeal to chain of custody, witch you habitually repeat as mantra at the scantest hint of ambiguity. Just like any other 2nd rate prison lawyer. Here too, I keep getting the feeling that you don't actually know how that part really worked, either.

“Scantest hint of ambiguity” has got to be the most dishonest characterization ever of unauthenticatable evidence.

[Mitch Todd]

I'll give you a bit of time to correct all your spelling mistakes and will only make this comment for now;

The sequence of events is pretty easy; Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him, having just arrived moments earlier. As soon as Oswald is brought in Rose talked to him;

Mr. BALL. Where did you go to work?
Mr. ROSE. I reported to the homicide office. It's room 317 at the city hall.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go then?
Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?

During that conversation Rose already had the wallet with two ID's in them;

Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out."

And Rose got the billfold containing the two ID's from "someone";

Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.

If that somebody had been Baker he would have recognized him.

So, now you try to fit in the "Bentley giving Baker the billfold" narrative....

This should be fun!

Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him, having just arrived moments earlier

By Rose's own account, Oswald was already sitting during this initial conversation. He'd been there for a bit. Rose wasn't waiting for him. If anything it was the other way around. This is seen clearly in the testimony of Rose's partner, Rick Stovall:

Mr. STOVALL. No, sir; I wasn't--as soon as I got there. I got there and one of my partners, G. F. Rose, got there about the same time. We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.

There was plenty of opportunity for a wallet to get from Bentley to Rose via at least one intermediary, so this latest line of argument goes nowhere.


If that somebody had been Baker he would have recognized him.

You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part.  It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him, having just arrived moments earlier

By Rose's own account, Oswald was already sitting during this initial conversation. He'd been there for a bit. Rose wasn't waiting for him. If anything it was the other way around. This is seen clearly in the testimony of Rose's partner, Rick Stovall:

Mr. STOVALL. No, sir; I wasn't--as soon as I got there. I got there and one of my partners, G. F. Rose, got there about the same time. We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.

There was plenty of opportunity for a wallet to get from Bentley to Rose via at least one intermediary, so this latest line of argument goes nowhere.

Talk about desperation.

Rose wasn't waiting for him. If anything it was the other way around.

Nobody said that Rose was waiting for him. Rose himself told the WC he was brought in a few minutes after he [Rose] got there.

Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?

Stoval doesn't even contradict him;

While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.

There was plenty of opportunity for a wallet to get from Bentley to Rose via at least one intermediary, so this latest line of argument goes nowhere.

Nope. According to Stovall, he and Rose were talking to somebody who saw and knew nothing. They did not take an affidavit from that person. They had no need to spend much time with that person after Oswald was brought in. You are desperately trying to make it sound as if both men would still spend minutes with a persom who saw and knew nothing before turning to Oswald. That simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

However, Bentley said in his report that he was first in the Homicide bureau and then gave the "identification" to Baker when he went to Captain Westbrook's office. That clearly implies he did not give, whatever it was he gave him, straight away.

If that somebody had been Baker he would have recognized him.

You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part.  It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory.

What an hilarious selfserving argument to make . Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.

You really need better quality arguments than this. You are the one making all the assumptions. I'm actually going by what the men themselves said. Care to try again?

[John Mytton]

I'm actually going by what the men themselves said.

Nice, let's see what the men themselves said.

The men in the squad car said;

Mr. BELIN. Was he asked where he lived?
Mr. HILL. That was the second question that was asked the suspect, and he didn't answer it, either.
About the time I got through with the radio transmission, I asked Paul Bentley, "Why don't you see if he has any identification."
Paul was sitting sort of sideways in the seat, and with his right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect's left hip pocket and said, "Yes, he has a billfold," and took it out.
I never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this identification, I believe, was on the library card.
And he also made the statement that there was some more identification in this other name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came in the paper that he bought the gun under.
Mr. BELIN. Would the name Hidell mean anything? Alek Hidell?
Mr. HILL. That would be similar. I couldn't say specifically that is what it was, because this was a conversation and I never did see it written down, but that sounds like the name that I heard.
Mr. BELIN. Was this the first time you learned of the name?
Mr. HILL. Yes; it was.

Mr. BELIN. Was he ever asked his name?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; he was asked his name.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give his name?
Mr. CARROLL. He gave, the best I recall, I wasn't able to look closely, but the best I recall, he gave two names, I think. I don't recall what the other one was.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give two names? Or did someone in the car read from the identification?
Mr. CARROLL. Someone in the car may have read from the identification. I know two names, the best I recall, were mentioned.

Then we have The Chief of Police, The Captain of the Dallas Police Department, US Postal Inspector, A Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Dallas Police officers who all said that Oswald was questioned about the Hidell Identification. And several of these men said that Oswald admitted carrying the Hidell ID.

Mr. STERN - What sort of question would he refuse to answer? Was there any pattern to his refusing?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, now, I am not certain whether this would apply then to this particular interview, the first interview or not, in answering this, but I recall specifically one of the interviews asking him about the Selective Service card which he had in the name of Hidell, and he admitted that he was carrying the card, but that he would not admit that he wrote the signature of Hidell on the card, and at that point stated that he refused to discuss the matter further. I think generally you might say anytime that you asked a question that would be pertinent to the investigation, that would be the type of question he would refuse to discuss.

Mr. BELIN. All right, what else?
Mr. HOLMES. In his billfold the police had found a draft registration card in the name of A. J. Hidell on his person at the time of his arrest, and I had seen it.
......
Mr. BELIN. Was anything in that room--was he asked about knowing Alek Hidell? Or anything about Alek Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. I brought it up first as to did he ever have a package sent to him from anywhere. I said, "Did you receive mail through this box 2915 under the name of any other name than Lee Oswald," and he said, "Absolutely not."
"What about a package to an A. J. Hidell?"
He said, "No."
"Well, did you order a gun in that name to come there?"
"No, absolutely not."
"Had one come under that name, could this fellow have gotten it?"
He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is possible she could have."
"Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."
I showed him the box rental application for the post office box in New Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?"
And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell."
"Well, I don't know anything about that."
That is all he would say about it.
Then Captain Fritz interrupted and said, "Well, what about this card we got out of your billfold? This draft registration card, he called it, where it showed A. J. Hidell."
"Well, that is the only time that I recall he kind of flared up and he said, "Now, I have told you all I am going to tell you about that card in my billfold." He said, "You have the card yourself, and you know as much about it as I do." And he showed a little anger. Really the only time that he flared up.

Mr. BALL. Another thing, that day, at sometime during the 22d when you questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his pocket with the name Alek Hidell?
Mr. FRITZ. I did; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you ask him about that?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe he had three of those cards if I remember correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was the Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or something.

Mr. LEAVELLE. Since you mentioned it, I do remember them talking to him about the New Orleans box and asking him about this other name, this----
Mr. BALL. Alek Hidell?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Yes; and he asked him if he knew Alek Hidell; said he didn't know if he ever heard of the name. He never heard of that and asked him several questions along that line and then after he had denied all knowledge of Alek Hidell, Mr. Kelley asked him, said "Well, isn't it a fact when you were arrested you had an identification card with his name on it in your possession." He kind of grunted, said "Yes, that's right" and he said "How do you explain that?" And, as best my knowledge. he said "I don't explain it."

Mr. BALL. He didn't tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out." And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.

Mr. DULLES - Could I ask a question? What was Oswald's attitude toward the police? Have you any comment on that?
Mr. CURRY - The only things I heard him say, he was very arrogant. He was very--he had a dislike for authority, it seemed, of anyone. He denied anything you asked him. I heard them ask once or twice if this was his picture or something, he said, "I don't know what you are talking about. No; it is not my picture," and this was a picture of him holding a rifle or something. I remember one time they showed him and he denied that being him.
I remember he denied anything knowing anything about a man named Hidell that he had this identification in his pocket or in his notebook, and I believe a postal inspector was in this room at the time, too, and someone asked him about the fact that he had a post office box in the name of Hidell and he didn't know anything about that. He just didn't know anything about anything.



   

 

JohnM