Two Wallets? Nope.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm just attempting to apply common sense to what is being shown.  Why would a witness hand their wallet to the police who would flip through it like that?  What exactly would he be looking for?   Why wouldn't the officer just ask the witness to show him an ID whatever he is looking for in the wallet instead of trying to find it himself?  At most, the police would want a name/address of a witness.  Why not just ask them to identify themselves instead of taking their wallet and looking through it?  If, however, it is Tippit's citation book, the officer would flip through it looking for any indication of who Tippit last encountered.  A license plate number or name.  That makes some sense. 

What can be ruled out is that the police found a discarded wallet at the scene of the murder and never even bothered to radio the identity of a potential suspect.  That makes absolutely no sense.  But then it gets even worse.  We are supposed to entertain the possibility that someone planted a wallet to link Oswald to the Tippit murder but then didn't anticipate that Oswald would have his real wallet upon arrest.  Oops.  And instead of doing the obvious thing in suppressing the wallet found on Oswald's person, they suppress the much more highly incriminatory wallet that they have taken the time and risk to plant at the crime scene.  HA HA HA.  Even the most dense and biased CT should be able to see the lunacy of that scenario.

I'm not saying that it is Tippit's citation book.  Maybe the police did, for some inexplicable reason, flip through a witness wallet. We don't have enough information to reach a conclusion.  The citation book just makes more sense of what is depicted until that possibility is eliminated.  For example, by accounting for the citation book in some other manner.  It seems odd that it is never mentioned.  Even without the "wallet" story, it would make sense to look at Tippit's citation book to see what, if anything, he wrote for his last encounter that day.

I'm just attempting to apply common sense to what is being shown.

No you don't, because common sense doesn't dismiss what witnesses said they saw.

Why would a witness hand their wallet to the police who would flip through it like that? 

Exactly my point. Why would a witness even give his wallet to a police officer after the suspect has already left the scene? That alone destroys Mytton's little theory.

If, however, it is Tippit's citation book, the officer would flip through it looking for any indication of who Tippit last encountered.  A license plate number or name.  That makes some sense. 

What doesn't make sense is why the uniformed police officer would give Tippit's citation book to a civilian, as is shown in the video footage?

What can be ruled out is that the police found a discarded wallet at the scene of the murder and never even bothered to radio the identity of a potential suspect.  That makes absolutely no sense.

It only makes no sense to you because you don't like it. So much for common sense! Croy confirmed in writing that he found a wallet, Barrett said that Westbrook looked through a wallet and asked him about Hidell and Oswald, and the TV crew said it was a wallet which they believed belonged to Tippit, which we now know isn't correct. So, the only reason why you want to rule out that it was a wallet is because in your strawman opinion the police should have broadcast the name of a suspect at a time when they didn't even know that the person the wallet belonged to was in fact a suspect.

We are supposed to entertain the possibility that someone planted a wallet to link Oswald to the Tippit murder but then didn't anticipate that Oswald would have his real wallet upon arrest.  Oops.

What makes you think that who ever planted the wallet (if that's what happened) did not anticipate that Oswald had a wallet on him? Perhaps what they did not anticipate on was that Bentley made it public knowledge that he took a wallet from Oswald before it could be disappeared? Plans sometimes do go wrong. The LNs are constantly telling us that Oswald expected to die at the TSBD, yet nothing happened and he walked out of the building without anybody paying attention to him!

I still find it amazing that, according to Bill Brown and Dale Myers, Bentley gave the wallet he had taken from Oswald to Lt Baker, who took it to Westbrook's office, and yet, we have Gus Rose, who was the first officer to talk to Oswald at the police station, testify that he was given a wallet by an unidentified person who said it was the suspect's wallet. Please make sense of that. How can a wallet be at two different places at the same time?

And instead of doing the obvious thing in suppressing the wallet found on Oswald's person, they suppress the much more highly incriminatory wallet that they have taken the time and risk to plant at the crime scene.  HA HA HA.

How do you suppress a wallet, when that wallet having been taken from Oswald by Bentley is already public knowledge? And what makes you think they suppressed the more incriminatory wallet, when they could simply switch one by the other and let some unidentified officer give it to Gus Rose? Ever considered that possibillity?... I doubt it, because police officers would never do such a thing, right? 

I'm not saying that it is Tippit's citation book.  Maybe the police did, for some inexplicable reason, flip through a witness wallet. We don't have enough information to reach a conclusion.

But we do have enough information. There's TV footage showing the wallet being looked through by Westbrook, there is a TV crew that confirmed it was indeed a wallet, there's Croy who confirmed in writing that he found the wallet and there's Barrett who tells us that Westbrook asked him about Oswald and Hidell while looking through the wallet. The only thing we don't have is a time machine!

[Richard Smith]

There is footage of the police officer holding an object that resembles a wallet in a poor-quality b&w film.  It most certainly could be a small notebook or citation book for writing tickets.  It is impossible to tell who the object is given.  Myers suggests it is Capt. Westbrook and not a civilian.  The only way to eliminate a citation book or notebook is to account for it.  I have to believe that someone must have found and looke at Tippit's citation book for the reasons discussed.  There are also significant problems with the discarded wallet story  Croy claimed the wallet had multiple IDs - none of which were Oswald's - while Barrett contends it contained Oswald's ID.  How can that be?  Of course, neither of these individuals tells that story for decades.  They don't mention possibly the second most incriminating piece of evidence in the entire case for decades?  LOL. 

[Martin Weidmann]

There is footage of the police officer holding an object that resembles a wallet in a poor-quality b&w film.  It most certainly could be a small notebook or citation book for writing tickets.  It is impossible to tell who the object is given.  Myers suggests it is Capt. Westbrook and not a civilian.  The only way to eliminate a citation book or notebook is to account for it.  I have to believe that someone must have found and looke at Tippit's citation book for the reasons discussed.  There are also significant problems with the discarded wallet story  Croy claimed the wallet had multiple IDs - none of which were Oswald's - while Barrett contends it contained Oswald's ID.  How can that be?  Of course, neither of these individuals tells that story for decades.  They don't mention possibly the second most incriminating piece of evidence in the entire case for decades?  LOL.

There is footage of the police officer holding an object that resembles a wallet in a poor-quality b&w film.  It most certainly could be a small notebook or citation book for writing tickets.

You are not paying attention; a TV crew said it was a wallet, FBI agent Barrett said it was a wallet and Officer Croy confirmed in writing that he found a wallet.

It is impossible to tell who the object is given.  Myers suggests it is Capt. Westbrook and not a civilian.

If it is Westbrook and not a civilian, then pray tell, who is the man next to the uniformed officer looking at the wallet?

The only way to eliminate a citation book or notebook is to account for it.

Why would a citation or notebook be eliminated? Just because you bring it up as a possibility? If you claim it is a citation book or notebook, then just prove it. The usual LN game "I'm right, unless proven wrong" is not working.

I have to believe that someone must have found and looke at Tippit's citation book for the reasons discussed

Of course, you have to believe that. You're an die hard LN. You don't have the luxery of looking at the evidence honestly. If you accept it was indeed a wallet containing Oswald and Hidell's ID, you also have to accept that the official narrative might not be true.

There are also significant problems with the discarded wallet story  Croy claimed the wallet had multiple IDs - none of which were Oswald's -

Where exactly did Croy claim that?

while Barrett contends it contained Oswald's ID.

No. Barrett said that Westbrook was looking at the wallet, at the Tippit scene, when he was asked if he knew anybody by the name Oswald or Hidell.

How can that be?  Of course, neither of these individuals tells that story for decades.

Lt Baker told Dale Myers in 1999 that Bentley gave him a wallet which he took to Westbrook's wallet and Myers and Bill Brown believe that.

There are no significant problems with the wallet story, there are just things you make up because you don't like the actual facts.

[John Mytton]

There is footage of the police officer holding an object that resembles a wallet in a poor-quality b&w film.  It most certainly could be a small notebook or citation book for writing tickets.  It is impossible to tell who the object is given.  Myers suggests it is Capt. Westbrook and not a civilian.  The only way to eliminate a citation book or notebook is to account for it.  I have to believe that someone must have found and looke at Tippit's citation book for the reasons discussed.  There are also significant problems with the discarded wallet story  Croy claimed the wallet had multiple IDs - none of which were Oswald's - while Barrett contends it contained Oswald's ID.  How can that be?  Of course, neither of these individuals tells that story for decades.  They don't mention possibly the second most incriminating piece of evidence in the entire case for decades?  LOL.

Weidmann's two wallet shenanigans is the most stupid CT theory I have ever read, why manufacture and introduce a second wallet and then stupidly hide this powerful link to a man you're trying to set-up? Especially when it's customary for a man and in this case Oswald to have his wallet on his person, which funnily enough is EXACTLY what happened. It's just another CT wet dream because after 60+ years they have NOTHING besides distant decades old memories, it's actually quite pathetic!

Anyway, I looked into the wallet being Tippit's notebook and this is my conclusions.

1) I couldn't find any trace of Tippit's notebook in the archives. But I did find what the Dallas Police used as their inventory notebook.



2) Also, I did find these Police Notebooks from roughly the same time period and in each case they are quite long and one is measured to be 9 inches.







3) While not conclusive, the object in the footage IMO is a bit small to be a notebook, and the white section within the object appears to be credit card sized. The object also seems to be flexible as it bends while being moved.



4) This wallet from 1963 has the same configuration and as seen above, the suited man runs his finger across, which corresponds with the orientation of someone's I.D. within the wallet.



My theory based on the cops movements with the revolver as he has no worries about pointing the gun at the suited man's hand but very quickly withdraws it when giving back the wallet to a civilian. And also of note is that Callaway takes the revolver from the squad car and goes looking for Oswald and obviously when he returns his actions would need some serious explanation and I reckon he was asked for his ID and simply handed over his wallet which had his ID at the front of the plastic sleaves.

Mr. BALL. The pistol was out of the holster?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir; out of the holster, and it was unsnapped. It was on his right side. He was laying with the gun under him.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I picked the gun up and laid it on the hood of the squad car, and then someone put it in the front seat of the squad car. Then after I helped load Officer Tippit in the ambulance, I got the gun out of the car and told this cabdriver, I said, "You saw the guy didn't you?" He said, yes.
I said, "If he is going up Jefferson, he can't be very far. Let's see if we can find him." So I went with Scoggins in the taxicab,....

BTW, the fact that the name wasn't broadcast is further proof that there was no wallet that was dropped by a potential murderer at the scene. Any cop would come to the conclusion that a wallet would have been dropped by Tippit's killer as Tippit asked for the man to show his I.D.!

They don't mention possibly the second most incriminating piece of evidence in the entire case for decades?  LOL.

It's all a wishful CT fantasy which doesn't even stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

JohnM

[Jon Banks]

Weidmann's two wallet shenanigans is the most stupid CT theory I have ever read, why manufacture and introduce a second wallet and then stupidly hide this powerful link to a man you're trying to set-up? Especially when it's customary for a man and in this case Oswald to have his wallet on his person, which funnily enough is EXACTLY what happened. It's just another CT wet dream because after 60+ years they have NOTHING besides distant decades old memories, it's actually quite pathetic!

A "stupid CT" is one which lacks evidence or substance.

In this example, there are eye witness accounts, written corroboration, and film corroboration. There may be a reasonable and innocent explanation for the wallet discrepancies. But for now, we can't rule out nefarious theories at this point.

[John Mytton]

A "stupid CT" is one which lacks evidence or substance.

In this example, there are eye witness accounts, written corroboration, and film corroboration. There may be a reasonable and innocent explanation for the wallet discrepancies. But for now, we can't rule out nefarious theories at this point.

The evidence is decades old memories, the film as I explained is worthless and an alternate narrative has to make sense, and so far not one CT has come forward with a logical narrative that fits.
But let me try to figure this out for you, the conspirators somehow had E.S.P. that Oswald would have no alibi and be in the immediate vicinity, so they killed an innocent cop and dropped a wallet to link Oswald to the crime but the initial dumbass cops don't make the connection and for several decades kept the wallet discovery to themselves?? Even if I try and knowing all your facts, I still can't provide a decent narrative and I guess that's why the CT's keep their stupid theories to themselves!

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

The evidence is decades old memories, the film as I explained is worthless and an alternate narrative has to make sense, and so far not one CT has come forward with a logical narrative that fits.
But let me try to figure this out for you, the conspirators somehow had E.S.P. that Oswald would have no alibi and be in the immediate vicinity, so they killed an innocent cop and dropped a wallet to link Oswald to the crime but the initial dumbass cops don't make the connection and for several decades kept the wallet discovery to themselves?? Even if I try and knowing all your facts, I still can't provide a decent narrative and I guess that's why the CT's keep their stupid theories to themselves!

JohnM

  another lame nutter excuse made up on the fly (they are everywhere)
The item was identified as the suspect's wallet by multiple officers and the news cast itself.

[John Mytton]

The item was identified as the suspect's wallet by multiple officers and the news cast itself.

 

And that suspect's name was Oswald;
• the same Oswald that was positively identified by almost a dozen eyewitnesses.
• the same Oswald that was arrested with the revolver exclusively linked to the crime scene.
• the same Oswald that discarded his jacket near-by.
• the same Oswald that hid in a Theater
• the same Oswald that tried to kill more Police with the same revolver.
• the same Oswald that lied about his revolver purchase.
Oh, that Oswald!

Keep going Michael, with you as Oswald's defence attorney, Oswald would have fried! Hahahaha!

JohnM