Two Wallets? Nope.

[Martin Weidmann]

1. Can you point to the post where Richard said the wallet was dropped by an witness because he said in this thread that finding a discarded wallet at the scene would be a "bizarre coincidence"? Richard has also speculated that it wasn't a wallet but was Tippit's notebook.

2. I analysed the footage in a post earlier in this thread and said the wallet was being given back to an eyewitness who obviously was not Hidell or Oswald.

JohnM

So, you agree it was a wallet that Westbrook was looking at on 10th street? That's progress.

[John Mytton]

So, you agree it was a wallet that Westbrook was looking at on 10th street? That's progress.

In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun and without a care even has it aimed close to the hand of the detective who is pointing something out within the wallet and then when the cop hands over the wallet, he quickly points the gun away and more towards himself.
The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera and thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back, the cop responds correctly by diverting the aim of the gun and away from the direction of this civilian.



BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun and without a care even has it aimed close to the hand of the detective who is pointing something out within the wallet and then when the cop hands over the wallet, he quickly points the gun away and more towards himself.
The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera and thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back, the cop responds correctly by diverting the aim of the gun and away from the direction of this civilian.



BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.

JohnM

In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun and without a care

Who cares where the cop is waving is gun? The point is that you agree that cop and Westbrook are looking at a wallet.

The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera

That's your "most likely scenario"? Really?

thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back,

And which civilian would that be?

But wait, didn't you just say that a witness dropping their wallets at a crime scenes is unlikely?  Can you please make up your mind?

BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.

Wow, high praise from a guy who completely changed his mind when he got a job at the TSBD museum. It's also a pathetic appeal to authority!

If he really agreed with you, why do so in a PM instead of on the forum? Sounds dubious to me!

[John Mytton]

But wait, didn't you just say that a witness dropping their wallets at a crime scenes is unlikely? 

Yes, a civilian randomly dropping their wallet at the scene of a crime is of course highly unlikely, but Police identifying eyewitnesses is part of their job.

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

Oh, wow. these brain-twisters are so difficult that even the swami's head is aching, but he will give it another shot ...

1. Because Hill by this point knew the suspect's actual name was Oswald. Makes sense - no?

2. Because at this point the name Hidell was of no particular significance except as a fake ID in the wallet. Makes sense - no?

The sloppy Hill likewise failed to say "The wallet also contained photos of an unidentified woman and an infant wrapped in swaddling, which we believe may be additional disguises used by the suspect."

Lame nutter excuses made up on the fly, with absolutely no documented evidence.
...it is constant.

[Michael Capasse]

Gerald Hill was interviewed on the day of the arrest and said, “The only way we found out what his name was, was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was.” Later in the interview a reporter asked, “What was the name on the billfold?” Hill replied, “Lee H. Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D”. No mention of Hidell. Why not?

...and of course, where are the 5 bullets in his pocket?

[Lance Payette]

Lame nutter excuses made up on the fly, with absolutely no documented evidence.
...it is constant.

Odd. Yet another poster who speaks only in weirdly snarly one-liners. HOW MANY sock puppets does "Martin" have??? Is it pure coincidence that these characters float in and out, never say anything substantive, and post only in Martin-speak? This is becoming genuinely fascinating.

Anyway, is it "lame" with "no evidence" to say the DPD were pretty certain the suspect was named Oswald by the time he was in custody and Hill spoke to the press? Is there a shred of evidence they ever thought his name was actually Hidell?

Is it "lame" with "no evidence" to say they had no reason at this point to believe the Hidell name was of particular significance or tied to the ordering of the rifle? Isn't to suggest they did precisely the sort of completely baseless speculation that is the lifeblood of CT world?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The Keystone cops like incompetence and disarray in the investigation is proof of a conspiracy. And Katzenbach's memo ordering and directing the scripted investigation is also proof of a conspiracy.

So, if the investigation was incompetent and confused and muddled that's proof of a conspiracy. But if the investigation is controlled/directed (by Katzenbach?) and scripted out that's proof of a conspiracy too. Up is down and down is up.

Katzenbach was Mr. Big? He directed/controlled the investigations? Over 60 years? Who believes Earl Warren or Hoover or followup investigations could be controlled by Katzenbach? And the news media? Katzenbach controlled them too?

Conspiracists have said LBJ controlled the investigation. No, it was Hoover. No, Dulles. No, Angleton. No, Katzenbach. Sixty years of this gibberish, of made up stuff. The Seymour Hersh account always comes to mind. He told Oliver Stone that the CIA killed JFK theory was nonsense, it didn't happen. What was Stone's response to Hersh? "I always knew you were CIA."

Anyway, here's the Katzenbach memo: Opening paragraph.

"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."

Full memo: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29