Two Wallets? Nope.

[John Mytton]

You've been trying for 60+ years. - how's that going?

Huh?

What are you talking about, you've got it ass backwards, the official narrative has been rock solid for 60+ years, Oswald went to Irving on an unscheduled night got his rifle then took it to work and killed the President, then while in flight from the scene killed Tippit, the second Dallas Policeman killed by gunfire in the line of duty in the previous decade, what are the chances that Oswald was arrested nearby while trying to kill more Policemen with the same revolver linked to the scene of the Tippit crime!
Whereas poor, poor Michael, it's you and your team that are the one's struggling to present an alternate narrative, when will some CT be able to provide evidence of a conspiracy? Waiting...ZZZzzzzzz.....



JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

Huh?

...struggling to present an alternate narrative, when will some CT be able to provide evidence of a conspiracy?
JohnM

I don't do alternate narratives. No need. The broken inconsistencies through out this case are enough direct evidence of conspiracy and coverup.
While nutters like Mytton make up lame excuses on the fly..."Frazier didn't pay attention - no wait, it was, Frasier lied". or the wallet was a citizen's,  that's it, no wait, it's proof that Oswald was there"...just lame excuse after excuse, each one backed into your fairy tale narrative 60 years too late. Whatever it takes.
Then, in here like a minor bird, day after day squawking at the wall. "bawk, bawk...rock solid for 60+ years...bawk bawk"

Meanwhile, a mandate was dictated in the Katzenbach memo on the 25^th....
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin...."

[Michael Capasse]

There's a wallet in his pocket: "...Lee H. Oswald. O-S-W-A-L-D..."
There's a wallet at the Tippit scene:  "...‘How about an Alek Hidell?’ "

"FBI agent Jim Hosty, who had responsibility for watching Oswald, wrote that a wallet containing identification for both Oswald and
“Alek Hidell” was found near a pool of blood."

  looks like a setup to me.

[Martin Weidmann]

You clearly don't know how a debate works.
Bill presents his evidence and you in turn present your evidence, and the LNers, CT's and interested others will declare a winner see how easy that is!

YAWN! You keep saying that but every time Bill posts anything re Tippit, you're always replying and voicing your disapproval, just have a proper debate and prove that you know the case better than Bill. Easy Peasy.

JohnM

Bill presents his evidence and you in turn present your evidence, and the LNers, CT's and interested others will declare a winner see how easy that is!

I'm so glad that you understand how a debate works..... pfffffffffffff   

Presenting evidence by itself is easy and can be done in writing on this forum. You don't need a debate for that.
In a real debate the evidence presented by the other side is challenged, questioned and defended. In other words, questions are asked and answered by both sides.
That's the only way it can be determined if the evidence actually holds up under scrutiny or not.

So, how would that work when Brown doesn't answer questions?

YAWN! You keep saying that but every time Bill posts anything re Tippit, you're always replying and voicing your disapproval, just have a proper debate and prove that you know the case better than Bill. Easy Peasy.

So, now asking questions is "voicing my disapproval"? Brown made a claim and I asked him to explain further..... He doesn't answer! Go figure... one could conclude that he lacks the arguments to answer.

just have a proper debate and prove that you know the case better than Bill. Easy Peasy.

I couldn't care less if Brown knows the case better than me. In fact, he probably does. Or at least his preferred version of the case.

Knowing (a version) of the case doesn't automatically mean being right. Ever thought of that, genius?

[Richard Smith]

So it's your belief that Agent Barrett and Officer Croy were mistaken?

They very well may have been mistaken but nevertheless, we're stuck with two conflicting accounts of where the Dallas PD gained custody of Oswald's wallet.

Based on the available information, neither of us can conclusively say they were mistaken or lied.

We can apply common sense and logic.  How about just answering the questions that take us down the yellow brick road. 
1) If the police had found a discarded wallet at the crime scene, wouldn't they have cause to believe that the owner was their suspect who dropped his wallet during a police encounter that went bad?  It would be a bizarre coincidence to find a discarded wallet at the scene of police officer's murder.
2)  If they obtained a name from the wallet, wouldn't they immediately broadcast that name over the radio to be on the lookout for this individual?  We know that they didn't do this.  What does that tell you? 
3) If the police or someone else were involved in the framing of Oswald by planting a fake wallet at the scene, wouldn't they anticipate that Oswald would have his actual wallet on his person when arrested and that is the wallet that they would suppress?

[Jon Banks]

We can apply common sense and logic.

I've applied logic and common sense to this topic. It doesn't resolve the mystery of the discrepancy regarding the differing accounts of when and where Oswald's wallet was obtained.

As of today, we cannot rule out the possibility that Officer Croy and Agent Barrett's accounts were accurate. We can't dismiss their stories simply because it doesn't line up with the official narrative.

It's a mystery.

[Bill Brown]

For what it's worth, Bob Carroll told the Warren Commission that he remembered (during the car ride from the theater to headquarters) two different names being mentioned when the wallet was removed from Oswald's back pocket.  Also, Gerald Hill told the Commission that two names were read from the wallet (by Bentley) while in the car on the way to headquarters.

Bentley turned over the wallet (taken from Oswald while inside the car) to Lt. Baker who confirmed, in a 1999 interview with Dale Myers, that the wallet had identifications in two different names inside.  The officers involved in the arrest were inside the office of Westbrook.  This is where each filled out their reports, re: the arrest inside the theater.  The wallet, Westbrook and Barrett were all three inside Westbrook's office at the same time, once they arrived at headquarters from the theater.  Baker took the wallet to Fritz' office and described looking inside the wallet and seeing identifications inside in two different names and so he asked Oswald which one he was.  Oswald finally stated that his name was Oswald.  When Fritz arrived in his office, the wallet was given to Fritz.

C.T. Walker sat with Oswald inside Fritz' office before Fritz arrived. Walker told the Warren Commission that he recalled the wallet contained a photo identification in the name of Hidell.

Fritz kept the wallet in his possession until the next day when he sent it to the crime lab (Crime Scene Search Section of the Identification Bureau) in order to photograph the contents inside.  The wallet was returned to Fritz where it stayed in a drawer in his desk along with other items.

Then, according to James Hosty, on Wednesday the 27th, the contents of the desk drawer were turned over to Hosty of the FBI.  Hosty photographed the wallet and other items from the desk drawer before sending all of it to Washington.

As for Weidmann's question to me, re: Bardin... Bardin followed Davenport and the ambulance with Tippit to Methodist Hospital.  At Methodist, Tippit's body was stripped of it's belongings.  Bud Owens testified that Tippit's wallet, badge, handcuffs, wrist watch and other items were placed in a large paper envelope and turned over to Bardin to be taken to the property room of the Identification Bureau.  This is all I know, re: Bardin and ANY wallet.