CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton

[Michael Capasse]

Actually it's not about the wallet;

Rose and Stovall first said they "obtained" his ID (24H292).
In testimony, Stoval said Oswald had his billfold at the 1st interrogation (7H187-88) while Rose said Lee had the
contents of the billfold but not the billfold itself (7H228).

When FBI agent Clements saw Lee in the interrogation room by himself at 10 that night, the wallet was on a desk in the room (7H320).
While Lee was out of the room, Clements went through the wallet and listed its contents (H 615-17).

On 11/24/63, Fritz furnished the FBI with Photos of all the articles contained in the wallet of Lee Oswald at time of arrest.
These were apparently given to Bookhout, whose report lists 17 items (24H17).

A receipt executed by Hosty, which reads (24H347):
"Received from Capt. Will Fritz at approximately 1:00 a.m. on 11/27/63"
"Billfold and 16 cards and pictures taken from Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63"

The maximum number of items (excluding the cash) is 17 (24H17).
Hosty's receipt lists only 16 items. SA Clements lists 13 plus the cash, plus Lee's Social Sec. card which Lee "had...in possession."
Comparing the Clements list (H 615-17) with the Bookhout list of the photos Fritz supplied,

The following items are absent from Clements:
1. Photo of Oswald in marine uniform
2. A.J. Hidell Certificate of Service
3. slip of paper with 2 addresses for The Worker

FBI Agent Hosty also confirms this wallet was found at the scene. Patrolman Leonard Jez, told a conference in 1999 that the wallet was
identified at the murder scene as belonging to Oswald. Yet the Hidell ID does not appear documented by Clements until Fritz hands over the inventory on 11/27.

That service card is key, and ties the murder weapon of the President with the officer's killer. But it's all very suspicious, instant like -
when Belin asked Hill about the name Hidell, the Sgt. became coy, like he "couldn't say specifically", "...sounds like the name".
That became the act by April 08, 1964.

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."

[Michael Capasse]

It is one of those stupid, garbage, nonsense, instances in this case

There are a few more;
Like the Parkland doctors that never looked at the back of the head.
Or the bullet that falls out of the Governors leg after leaving lead at the femur bone
Or the bullet that struck the cop, but was stopped by a button on his coat or shirt.
Or the "unmutilated" condition of CE-399 after 7 wounds incl. fracturing a rib and shattering a wrist.

Ever have a wallet fall out of your pocket?  This was supposed to be nine months after using the "Hidell card"
  Or a witnesses that walks up to a cop and says, "...the killer dropped this..."

Too funny.

[Richard Smith]

Think about how idiotic it is to suggest that the investigators found or planted Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene but then decided for some inexplicable reason to claim it was found on his person.

You can consider it to be idiotic as much as you want, but just about everybody who lives in the real world knows that police officers do plant and manipulate evidence. If the wallet taken from Oswald by Bentley had no or little evidentiary value but the highly incriminating (possible planted) wallet from the Tippit scene does have such value, it's certainly not impossible that a simple switch was made.

And the kicker is that these are the very same investigators you otherwise imply are involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald

I never said that those DPD officers were part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. But it is not impossible that in Henry Wade's 1963 Texas, the case was wrapped around Oswald, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
History has shown that the DPD had a reputation for frequently doing stuff like that, which is exactly the reason why the innocence project managed to get a substantial number of convictions obtained by Wade overturned.

Here, however, you suggest they are doing exactly the opposite by covering up the discovery of his wallet at the murder scene.

No. You are suggesting that. I never did

Instead of playing the endless contrarian give us a narrative that explains Oswald's wallet being left at the Tippit murder scene and the investigators covering that up.  Particularly if you think they are involved in framing Oswald.  Explain it.  Don't deflect to some contrarian nonsense.

[Martin Weidmann]

Instead of playing the endless contrarian give us a narrative that explains Oswald's wallet being left at the Tippit murder scene and the investigators covering that up.  Particularly if you think they are involved in framing Oswald.  Explain it.  Don't deflect to some contrarian nonsense.

Instead of playing the endless contrarian give us a narrative that explains Oswald's wallet being left at the Tippit murder scene and the investigators covering that up.

Why would I give you a narrative for something I have never said.

You have already been told that nobody claims that investigators covered up a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene, yet you keep on repeating it. it is not my problem if you can't understand what is written.