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.
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. In my previous posts I made it clear enough that this was a possibility.
Let's examine what we actually know;
Hill and Bentley were sitting on either side of Oswald on the back seat of the car, when Hill asked Bentley to look for identification. Bentley found a wallet and, according to Hill, mentioned Lee Oswald. Not a word about Hidell by any of the officers in the car until Hill, during his WC testimony on April 8, 1964, vaguely remembers another name, which could have been Hidell, was also mentioned in the car. There is not a single report (including the one filed by Bentley on 11/22/63) that actually mentions an Hidell ID being found in that wallet.
On the other hand we have FBI agent Barrett who not only clearly states that Westbrook was holding a wallet and asked him about Hidell and Oswald at the Tippit crime scene. When the suggestion was made that the wallet with the Hidell ID in it was taken from Oswald in the car, he called it "hogwash".
This is were it gets complicated. When the car arrived at City Hall, Bentley went to the homicide bureau to write a report (the one in which he does not mention Hidell!) before being taken to the hospital. What happened to the wallet that Bentley has is anybody's guess. Bentley writes in his report that he gave the identification to Lt. Baker, after he had initialed the revolver together with Hill. The problem is that, according to Hill, that happened at around 4:00 PM. And then we have officer Walker who had been at the Tippit crime scene, who claims in his WC testimony that when Oswald was brought into the homicide bureau (at around 1:15 PM , IIRC) he (Walker) had the revolver and the Hidell identification.
So, now we turn to Guy Rose, who had been called in and arrived just as Oswald was being brought in. He was the first officer to talk to Oswald and just before that happened an unidentified patrol officer gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.
So, here is the discrepancy; if Bentley gave the wallet to Lt Baker at around 4:00 PM, how could Rose have had it at just past 1:00 PM when he talked to Oswald and how could the wallet containing the Hidell ID be submitted to the evidence room at 3:35 PM.
Do you understand the problem now?
But may I ask, are you meaning this as evidence Oswald was present at the crime scene with Hidell ID? No. It's only potential evidence that a wallet containing the Oswald and Hidell ID was at the Tippit crime scene. How it got there is anybody's guess.
Do you think Oswald shot Tippit? What I think is not really important, but since you asked; I think it's a mistake to jump to conclusions.
It all comes down to opportunity and motive. Could Oswald have arrived at 10th street in time to kill Tippit? What was he even doing there? And if he shot Tippit to evade arrest why not leave after Tippit was down? Why go back and shoot him in the head to ensure he was dead? It doesn't make sense to me. The coup the grace shot is a complete mystery to me.
Do you think he accidentally dropped his wallet at the scene, or handed his wallet to Tippit? I have no idea. Once again you assume that it was Oswald himself who carried that wallet but we don't know that.
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.I've already said this once before. What if Barrett, for 30 years, had no knowledge there was even a problem with the wallet until he talked to Hosty? Vicki Adams wasn't heard from for decades because she wasn't aware what the WC had said about her reliablity or lack thereof. As the case was closed in 1964, Barrett would have gotten on with his life and most likely never had a reason to second guess the WC report.
This Oswald wallet at the crime scene very parallel to the Mike Howard claim. They’re both equally unbelievable and for exactly parallel reasons.No. The wallet story has footage showing it being held at the Tippit scene. There's also circumstantial evidence to support the possibility of wallets being switched.
The only reason for you to call them both unbelievable is that you don't want to believe them. It is as simple as that.
