CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton

[Martin Weidmann]

Round and round we go down the contrarian rabbit hole.  You have suggested that your fantasy conspirators are working against their own interest in framing Oswald.  You have no explanation for why they might do this.  You don't even try likely realizing the stupidity of what you are claiming.  Taking ownership of the implications of your theories are not a strong point.  They are just so in contrarian land.  No one involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald would cover up the discovery of his wallet at the Tippit murder scene.  Full stop.

You have suggested that your fantasy conspirators are working against their own interest in framing Oswald. 

I'm not talking to a dishonest fool who makes up stuff that I never suggested.

No one involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald would cover up the discovery of his wallet at the Tippit murder scene.

Which is why they didn't cover it up. I'm sorry if that's over your head.

[Lance Payette]

J. D. Tippit's death certificate says the injury occurred at 1:18 PM and death occurred at 1:15 PM! Carry on.

Oops, I guess this belongs on the other thread.

[Martin Weidmann]

J. D. Tippit's death certificate says the injury occurred at 1:18 PM and death occurred at 1:15 PM! Carry on.

Yes, I noticed that as well. The problem is that the death certificate was filed on November 29, 1963 by Dudley Funeral Home, who, as far as I can tell, did not have first hand knowledge about what happened at the hospital a week earlier.

You can't make this stuff up!

[Greg Doudna]

Yes, it would indeed be memorable to find a wallet on Oswald containing the Hidell ID. So, why did none of the officers that were in the car with Oswald mention such a find in any report? For months none of the officers said anything. Bentley wasn't called to testify and Gerald Hill said in his testimony, six months later, that he vaguely remembered the Hidell name being mentioned. Now isn't that weird?

Everything else you have written is pure speculation, so I won't bother to reply to it.

What I will ask you is; can you produce a solid chain of custody for the wallet taken from Oswald by Bentley?

Also, who was the unidentified officer that gave Guy Rose a wallet that contained the Hidell ID, and where did he/she get that wallet?

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 there is no chain of custody for the wallet, how can it be determined conclusively that the wallet given to Rose is the same one that Bentley took from Oswald in the car?

Those may be valid questions but are of no relevance to the issue under discussion, the claim of Oswald ID in the WFAA-TV wallet filmed at the crime scene. It is not logical to link objections to a vanishingly weak case on Claim A to a “what about” over somewhere else where there is no linkage at all. The point about the Oswald ID claim at the crime scene is if there had been such a thing it would have been told, Leavelle in charge of the investigation would have known, that wallet would have been marked by officers, or bagged and labeled, and turned in as evidence to the crime lab at the crime scene right then instead of returned to whoever its civilian owner was at the scene. It would not wait 30 years for a claim of such to first come out from anyone. There is not a single witness in their living lifetime who is on tape or in print or statement signed in their own name saying they saw Oswald ID at the crime scene. Think about that. Even Croy’s posthumous autograph inscription if one thinks about it is at best a claim of belief (anyone can believe anything, that’s not evidence), not a claim of having firsthand witness evidence to offer.

There is no known record that Scoggins was ever asked about that wallet, and it is not clear (to me anyway) that Callaway ever was asked directly or directly denied. The reason for a little uncertainty here is Myers never reports a Callaway denial in his book, but at one point seemed to do so in a passing comment on his blog, but when I tried to ask him for clarification on that—because it is an important point if true—he did not answer my question. And I don’t think it even was written by Myers top level in a blog post but in one of the appended comments after, and he never repeated it. So I at least am uncertain if that is actually Callaway did deny, or whether that was maybe Myers’ interpretation of something less clear from Callaway. And of course there is no exact quote, transcript or tape of Myers’ Callaway interview to consult to fact-check the point. Bottom line: it seems likely—in light of the factual linkage of that wallet to the Tippit revolver filmed in the same officer’s hand—that that wallet was from either Callaway or Scoggins, and WFAA-TV filmed it just moments before it was returned to the citizen, probably Callaway or Scoggins, as its rightful owner, of no evidential interest or relevance to the Tippit murder case.

That it was not turned in as evidence at the time indicates it was a citizen’s, not considered evidence in the murder case. Since it is abnormal for a civilian to give an officer a wallet itself instead of ID pulled out from a wallet, this was not a normal routine citizen’s ID check. But it is factually part of the return of the Tippit revolver which had factually been taken from the crime scene by Callaway, with Callaway seen having done so causing witnesses to at first suspect Callaway, and Callaway and Scoggins were stopped and the Tippit revolver retrieved from Callaway at gunpoint, or in a hostile and embarrassing encounter. Since the wallet is linked to that Tippit revolver’s recovery from Callaway (evidence: the WFAA footage), that wallet makes sense as obtained from Callaway at the same time as the Tippit revolver, both turned in to the police, the police realize Callaway was not the gunman, and give him back his wallet. It’s a reconstruction but it is a plausible explanation of the wallet which accounts for the facts, and whose else would that wallet be than one of those two—a wallet linked to the Tippit revolver recovery episode and which police do not consider physical evidence in the crime case.

[Martin Weidmann]

Those may be valid questions but are of no relevance to the issue under discussion, the claim of Oswald ID in the WFAA-TV wallet filmed at the crime scene. It is not logical to link objections to a vanishingly weak case on Claim A to a “what about” over somewhere else where there is no linkage at all. The point about the Oswald ID claim at the crime scene is if there had been such a thing it would have been told, Leavelle in charge of the investigation would have known, that wallet would have been marked by officers, or bagged and labeled, and turned in as evidence to the crime lab at the crime scene right then instead of returned to whoever its civilian owner was at the scene. It would not wait 30 years for a claim of such to first come out from anyone. There is not a single witness in their living lifetime who is on tape or in print or statement signed in their own name saying they saw Oswald ID at the crime scene. Think about that. Even Croy’s posthumous autograph inscription if one thinks about it is at best a claim of belief (anyone can believe anything, that’s not evidence), not a claim of having firsthand witness evidence to offer.

There is no known record that Scoggins was ever asked about that wallet, and it is not clear (to me anyway) that Callaway ever was asked directly or directly denied. The reason for a little uncertainty here is Myers never reports a Callaway denial in his book, but at one point seemed to do so in a passing comment on his blog, but when I tried to ask him for clarification on that—because it is an important point if true—he did not answer my question. And I don’t think it even was written by Myers top level in a blog post but in one of the appended comments after, and he never repeated it. So I at least am uncertain if that is actually Callaway did deny, or whether that was maybe Myers’ interpretation of something less clear from Callaway. And of course there is no exact quote, transcript or tape of Myers’ Callaway interview to consult to fact-check the point. Bottom line: it seems likely—in light of the factual linkage of that wallet to the Tippit revolver filmed in the same officer’s hand—that that wallet was from either Callaway or Scoggins, and WFAA-TV filmed it just moments before it was returned to the citizen, probably Callaway or Scoggins, as its rightful owner, of no evidential interest or relevance to the Tippit murder case.

That it was not turned in as evidence at the time indicates it was a citizen’s, not considered evidence in the murder case. Since it is abnormal for a civilian to give an officer a wallet itself instead of ID pulled out from a wallet, this was not a normal routine citizen’s ID check. But it is factually part of the return of the Tippit revolver which had factually been taken from the crime scene by Callaway, with Callaway seen having done so causing witnesses to at first suspect Callaway, and Callaway and Scoggins were stopped and the Tippit revolver retrieved from Callaway at gunpoint, or in a hostile and embarrassing encounter. Since the wallet is linked to that Tippit revolver’s recovery from Callaway (evidence: the WFAA footage), that wallet makes sense as obtained from Callaway at the same time as the Tippit revolver, both turned in to the police, the police realize Callaway was not the gunman, and give him back his wallet. It’s a reconstruction but it is a plausible explanation of the wallet which accounts for the facts, and whose else would that wallet be than one of those two—a wallet linked to the Tippit revolver recovery episode and which police do not consider physical evidence in the crime case.

Those may be valid questions but are of no relevance to the issue under discussion, the claim of Oswald ID in the WFAA-TV wallet filmed at the crime scene.

Of course the questions are relevant. You may not like them, but that doesn't make them less relevant.

The point about the Oswald ID claim at the crime scene is if there had been such a thing it would have been told,

That's just your assumption. It seems to me you are just not getting it.

that wallet would have been marked by officers, or bagged and labeled, and turned in as evidence to the crime lab at the crime scene right then

Really? The wallet that Bentley took from Oswald in the car wasn't marked!

And as far as turning it in to the evidence room; a wallet was indeed presented to the evidence room at 3:35 PM. We just don't know which wallet that was.

instead of returned to whoever its civilian owner was at the scene

Another assumption for which there is not a shred of evidence. Some LNs claim that what is seen in the footage is most likely Tippit's citation book and others claim it was a wallet that belonged to a civilian. The fact remains that FBI agent Barrett said that it was a wallet and that Westbrook was looking at it when he asked him if he knew Hidell or Oswald. Again, you may not like it. You may even want to dismiss it, but the fact of the matter is that what Barrett said is evidence. Deal with it!

There is not a single witness in their living lifetime who is on tape or in print or statement signed in their own name saying they saw Oswald ID at the crime scene.

There also isn't a single officer, who was in the car with Oswald, who ever wrote in a report that the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald contained a Hidell ID. Not even Bentley himself mentioned it in the report he wrote on the day of the arrest. Do you really want people to believe that a crucial piece of evidence, potentially linking Oswald to the rifle and revolver, would be ignored and not mentioned by any officer? Really?

That it was not turned in as evidence at the time indicates it was a citizen’s, not considered evidence in the murder case.

You are way too desperate in trying to come up with "reasons" why it couldn't have been a wallet linked to Oswald that was found at the crime scene. As I said before, a wallet with the Hidell and Oswald ID's in it was submitted to the evidence room. We just don't know which wallet that was, but given the fact that none of the officers who were in the car with Oswald made any verbal or written statement about a Hidell ID being in that wallet, it most likely was indeed the crime scene wallet that was turned in to the evidence room, after it had been given to Guy Rose for his conversation with Oswald.

You can make all the assumptions you want, but please don't make the mistake of confusing your assumption with actual evidence!

[Michael Capasse]

Those may be valid questions but are of no relevance to the issue under discussion, the claim of Oswald ID in the WFAA-TV wallet filmed at the crime scene. It is not logical to link objections to a vanishingly weak case on Claim A to a “what about” over somewhere else where there is no linkage at all. The point about the Oswald ID claim at the crime scene is if there had been such a thing it would have been told, Leavelle in charge of the investigation would have known, that wallet would have been marked by officers, or bagged and labeled, and turned in as evidence to the crime lab at the crime scene right then instead of returned to whoever its civilian owner was at the scene. It would not wait 30 years for a claim of such to first come out from anyone. There is not a single witness in their living lifetime who is on tape or in print or statement signed in their own name saying they saw Oswald ID at the crime scene. Think about that. Even Croy’s posthumous autograph inscription if one thinks about it is at best a claim of belief (anyone can believe anything, that’s not evidence), not a claim of having firsthand witness evidence to offer.

There is no known record that Scoggins was ever asked about that wallet, and it is not clear (to me anyway) that Callaway ever was asked directly or directly denied. The reason for a little uncertainty here is Myers never reports a Callaway denial in his book, but at one point seemed to do so in a passing comment on his blog, but when I tried to ask him for clarification on that—because it is an important point if true—he did not answer my question. And I don’t think it even was written by Myers top level in a blog post but in one of the appended comments after, and he never repeated it. So I at least am uncertain if that is actually Callaway did deny, or whether that was maybe Myers’ interpretation of something less clear from Callaway. And of course there is no exact quote, transcript or tape of Myers’ Callaway interview to consult to fact-check the point. Bottom line: it seems likely—in light of the factual linkage of that wallet to the Tippit revolver filmed in the same officer’s hand—that that wallet was from either Callaway or Scoggins, and WFAA-TV filmed it just moments before it was returned to the citizen, probably Callaway or Scoggins, as its rightful owner, of no evidential interest or relevance to the Tippit murder case.

That it was not turned in as evidence at the time indicates it was a citizen’s, not considered evidence in the murder case. Since it is abnormal for a civilian to give an officer a wallet itself instead of ID pulled out from a wallet, this was not a normal routine citizen’s ID check. But it is factually part of the return of the Tippit revolver which had factually been taken from the crime scene by Callaway, with Callaway seen having done so causing witnesses to at first suspect Callaway, and Callaway and Scoggins were stopped and the Tippit revolver retrieved from Callaway at gunpoint, or in a hostile and embarrassing encounter. Since the wallet is linked to that Tippit revolver’s recovery from Callaway (evidence: the WFAA footage), that wallet makes sense as obtained from Callaway at the same time as the Tippit revolver, both turned in to the police, the police realize Callaway was not the gunman, and give him back his wallet. It’s a reconstruction but it is a plausible explanation of the wallet which accounts for the facts, and whose else would that wallet be than one of those two—a wallet linked to the Tippit revolver recovery episode and which police do not consider physical evidence in the crime case.

A lot of nothing to do with Scoggins or Callaway as related to the wallet. They left the scene.

Think about that. Even Croy’s posthumous autograph inscription if one thinks about it is at best a claim of belief (anyone can believe anything, that’s not evidence), not a claim of having firsthand witness evidence to offer.

This part is just made up

[Greg Doudna]

Martin Weidmann— I did not realize you were proposing a crime scene wallet might be the one turned in later as the Oswald wallet in evidence, and not the one said to have been taken from Oswald in the car. That removes some of my objection of irrelevance to the crime scene issue. But may I ask, are you meaning this as evidence Oswald was present at the crime scene with Hidell ID? Do you think Oswald shot Tippit? Do you think he accidentally dropped his wallet at the scene, or handed his wallet to Tippit? I’m having trouble seeing where you go with this.

30 years later for a first mention of something that would be expected memorable from the beginning is the key fact making this urban legend genre. Not all witness claims are equal. Analogy that comes to mind is the claim of Secret Service agent Mike Howard that a torn out page in Oswald’s address book had a death list of four people Oswald intended to kill, that Howard claimed he saw the first week. The problem is there is no verification and Howard first mentioned it nearly 30 years after the fact. Sure he said it. Still does. But nobody believes it (I sure don’t) because of the 30-yr delay for a first witness claim that has no other verification. This Oswald wallet at the crime scene very parallel to the Mike Howard claim. They’re both equally unbelievable and for exactly parallel reasons.