CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin Weidmann, it is not correct that the reason I reject the crime scene Oswald wallet first known in Hosty’s book in the late 1990’s is because that is what I want to believe. No, it is because witness claims always must be assessed case by case and that is how it looks to me evidentially as a judgment, on evidence grounds alone. If anything, I have a bias to want to read the evidence in a way that Oswald is innocent, which I have to attempt consciously not to interfere with objectivity (if that is possible). But what about yourself. You will agree, I believe, that upon first encounter of the Barrett story from 1990’s with its sensational claim, that cannot automatically, right off the bat, be known true or false. No witness saying something out of the blue 30 years later makes it true just because he said it. Agreed?

Then the next question is what did tip you to belief that 30-years later witness claim was true? Was a factor in there that you want it to be true (your own question to you)?

A first question in assessing a witness making a new sensational claim 30 years later for the first time (publicly) is always asked by investigative journalists. Did this witness tell others privately of this earlier or from the original time? Answer in Barrett’s case: no. Second question investigative journalists ask: is there positive corroboration from other evidence or witnesses to the late sensational claim? Answer: none known at that time. There was a wallet, that is not in dispute, but there is no positive evidence it was considered crime scene evidence by police, and there is a plausible explanation for it (as I hsve outlined related to the Tippit revolver incident recovery). Therefore the Barrett story is not needed to explain what otherwise has no conceivable reasonable other explanation.

Is it the personal character and credibility of the witness, Barrett? An argument can be made that he tried to incriminate Oswald at earlier times through a false claim, of which the later 30-year claim is similar in genre (intended to incriminate Oswald on Tippit). But never mind that—30 years is time for honest witnesses to confuse details in memory. Anyone who has a grandfather who likes to tell stories of the past knows that. It isn’t dishonesty, it’s fallibility in human recall and narrative construction with the passage of time.

What to you tipped the 1990s Barrett claim from a status of initial uncertainty and justified skepticism (because: sensational; new 30 years later) to conviction or confidence that his claim was true, in terms of positive evidence (not “it could be true” argument, but what you saw as positive evidence that it was true)? What says to you: other 30 years-later stories solely dependent on witness claims with no physical evidence [referring in this case to Oswald ID at the crime scene, not existence of a wallet] are urban legends. What tilted you to conclude this case was different; this witness was not only honest but also accurately honest, in this claim first made public or known made privately either, 30 years after the fact? A question of self-examination of epistemology—why do we come to think we know what we think we know?

Martin Weidmann, it is not correct that the reason I reject the crime scene Oswald wallet first known in Hosty’s book in the late 1990’s is because that is what I want to believe. No, it is because witness claims always must be assessed case by case and that is how it looks to me evidentially as a judgment, on evidence grounds alone.

Fair enough, but the Barrett story finds, at least to some extend, corroboration in the TV footage showing a uniformed police officer (likely Croy) and another man are looking at what seems to be a wallet. For a Hidell ID being found in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car there is no corroboration whatsoever.

If anything, I have a bias to want to read the evidence in a way that Oswald is innocent, which I have to attempt consciously not to interfere with objectivity (if that is possible). But what about yourself. You will agree, I believe, that upon first encounter of the Barrett story from 1990’s with its sensational claim, that cannot automatically, right off the bat, be known true or false. No witness saying something out of the blue 30 years later makes it true just because he said it. Agreed?[/b]

Yes, I agree that when somebody comes forward with a story, thirty years after the fact, it can not automatically be relied upon as being true or false. People build up false memories all the time and sometimes they make false claims on purpose, for whatever reason. But I don't see Barrett as somebody who would do that. So, the first question that needs to be asked is; why would a retired FBI agent suddenly tell a story about a 30 years old event, when he possibly wasn't even aware of the fact that there was footage that to some extend corroborates his story. That's the coincidence I can not get passed to dismiss Barrett's story outright.

But there is more circumstantial evidence. Together with Capt Westbrook, C.T. Walker was at the Tippit crime scene before going to the Texas Theater. This means that if there was a wallet found at the Tippit scene, Walker was there to witness it.

Now let's compare stories;

Story 1: Bentley said he took a wallet from Oswald in the car but does not mention finding a Hidell ID. In his report he says he initialed the revolver (allegedly taken from Oswald) and turned it over tl Lt. Baker, together with "his identification". Gerald Hill says in his WC testimony this happened at around 4:00 PM.

Story 2: C.T. Walker says in his WC testimony that he had the revolver and the suspects identification when Oswald was brought into the homicide bureau. Guy Rose said in his testimony that he arrived at City Hall just after Oswald had been brought in and that he was given a wallet by an unidentified person (which could be a patrolman). He then talked to Oswald and found the Hidell ID in the wallet. This all happened somewhere between 1:30 and 2:00 PM. We know from the receipt that the wallet and the S & W revolver were submitted to the evidence bureau at 3:35 PM

I don't see how the wallet in both stories could be the same one. So, what's a possible explanation? If we disregard the obvious contradiction of the revolver's chain of custody, and only focus on the wallet; it needs to be considered that C.T. Walker was at the Tippit crime scene. The only way I can fit Bentley's wallet story and Walker's wallet story in one narrative is by concluding that Bentley did in fact take a wallet from Oswald, which did not contain the Hidell ID, and kept it until turning it over to Lt Baker at around 4:00 PM, and Walker had the wallet found at the Tippit scene which he brought into City Hall where it was given to Guy Rose and subsequently was submitted to the evidence bureau at 3:35 PM.

If anybody can come with with another plausible explanation to square the two stories, I would love to hear it!
 

[Lance Payette]

Yes.
He never told us. It's a little late to ask him now.
It doesn't need to make sense to you. It made sense to Oswald. He was calling the shots in this episode.

This is a logical fallacy CTs often fall into. They can't understand why Oswald made the decisions he did and did the things he did. They put themselves in Oswald's shoes and think they wouldn't have done that. That's nice but irrelevant. Oswald did the things he thought was best for him. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to anybody but him.

No, it is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy would be to assume that Oswald "should have" been thinking and acting in a particular way or "would have" been thinking and acting as I think I would have done. Oswald had shot Tippit three times in the chest and then in the right temple either as Tippit was falling or was already on the ground - that's simply evidence as to what occurred. (I was thinking that Oswald had walked over the the fallen Tippit and administered the head shot, although now I don't see that; even Myers, however, describes all the shots as "point blank range.") The shot to the temple of a falling or fallen officer is the sort of thing that criminal profilers often associate with rage and a possible prior relationship. It's not out of bounds to ask "What, if anything, might this tell us?" As Martin pointed out, Oswald's presence at that location, Tippit's stop and the shooting itself are unusual in several respects. Again, it's not out of bounds to ask "What, if anything, might this tell us?" The question could lead to avenues of inquiry and then to evidence showing that there was more to the encounter than the crime scene evidence might suggest.

[Greg Doudna]

Martin Weidmann— from rechecking the wallet police accounts Bentley says he gave it to Baker. I would not rely on Hill much at all because he is late and Hill I have found otherwise filled with basic fact errors and confusions, he’s one of the less reliable witnesses as to accuracy as witnesses go. But Rose, Carroll, and Walker also said they saw Oswald’s wallet so it wasn’t turned in until later to be bagged as evidence and stored. There seems nothing direct from Baker on what he exactly did with it after receiving from Bentley meaning there is no hard evidence (from Baker) that anything is amiss. Weak chain of custody is not the same as positive evidence anything is amiss.

That is, it all can be harmonized by the wallet being reviewed by more than one officer after Bentley handed it over, Oswald questioned about it, etc. then (despite lack of specific paperwork on this) it becomes the bagged and logged Oswald arrest wallet evidence. There is no hard or positive evidence in this calling for supposition of a second wallet from the crime scene being substituted. You can make a scenario of such a substitution but that is argument from possibility which begs the question of how do you know that must have happened. If a second wallet entered and was substituted then you have additional complications raised of a coverup of the first one, officers in on coverup of deception etc. it is no evidence to say police were corrupt otherwise so could be here. That again is argument from possibility not positive evidence that that is the explanation in this case. Which again comes back to, why assume this in the first place.

You have mentioned several times a perception that the WFAA film of the wallet adds positive weight to the Barrett claim as credible. But no—Barrett was there and the wallet was there and Westbrook was there. Barrett is correct on all that but that is not the point. The point is Barrett’s claim that Westbrook’s inquiry to him about the Oswald ID happened THEN. The film of the wallet goes to nothing in confirming Barrett on that first-ever claim 30 years later, which is the point.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin Weidmann— from rechecking the wallet police accounts Bentley says he gave it to Baker. I would not rely on Hill much at all because he is late and Hill I have found otherwise filled with basic fact errors and confusions, he’s one of the less reliable witnesses as to accuracy as witnesses go. But Rose, Carroll, and Walker also said they saw Oswald’s wallet so it wasn’t turned in until later to be bagged as evidence and stored. There seems nothing direct from Baker on what he exactly did with it after receiving from Bentley meaning there is no hard evidence (from Baker) that anything is amiss. Weak chain of custody is not the same as positive evidence anything is amiss.

That is, it all can be harmonized by the wallet being reviewed by more than one officer after Bentley handed it over, Oswald questioned about it, etc. then (despite lack of specific paperwork on this) it becomes the bagged and logged Oswald arrest wallet evidence. There is no hard or positive evidence in this calling for supposition of a second wallet from the crime scene being substituted. You can make a scenario of such a substitution but that is argument from possibility which begs the question of how do you know that must have happened. If a second wallet entered and was substituted then you have additional complications raised of a coverup of the first one, officers in on coverup of deception etc. it is no evidence to say police were corrupt otherwise so could be here. That again is argument from possibility not positive evidence that that is the explanation in this case. Which again comes back to, why assume this in the first place.

You have mentioned several times a perception that the WFAA film of the wallet adds positive weight to the Barrett claim as credible. But no—Barrett was there and the wallet was there and Westbrook was there. Barrett is correct on all that but that is not the point. The point is Barrett’s claim that Westbrook’s inquiry to him about the Oswald ID happened THEN. The film of the wallet goes to nothing in confirming Barrett on that first-ever claim 30 years later, which is the point.

Martin Weidmann— from rechecking the wallet police accounts Bentley says he gave it to Baker. I would not rely on Hill much at all because he is late and Hill I have found otherwise filled with basic fact errors and confusions, he’s one of the less reliable witnesses as to accuracy as witnesses go. 

What do you mean by "he is late"? Why are you so selective in what you believe and don't believe. Hill said he had the revolver, allegedly taken from Oswald, from the moment of the arrest until the marking of the revolver. That constitutes a chain of custody for a revolver. Are you now telling me I can't rely on Hill for that chain of custody?

But Rose, Carroll, and Walker also said they saw Oswald’s wallet so it wasn’t turned in until later to be bagged as evidence and stored.

No. Rose, Carroll and Walker never said they saw "Oswald's wallet". Rose said he was given a wallet which was claimed to belong to Oswald by an unknown person. Walker said he had a wallet but not that it belonged to Oswald, as he had no way of knowing first hand. At best he could have concluded that based on what was in the wallet. Carroll drove the car and I can't find any report or statement in which he claims he saw Oswald's wallet.

Having said that, I don't understand how Rose, Carroll and Walker seeing a wallet means it wasn't turned in later.

There seems nothing direct from Baker on what he exactly did with it after receiving from Bentley meaning there is no hard evidence (from Baker) that anything is amiss.

That's a silly argument. Just because you can't find what Baker did with the wallet he got from Bentley, doesn't tell you anything either way about something being amiss.

Weak chain of custody is not the same as positive evidence anything is amiss.

What chain of custody are you even talking about?

That is, it all can be harmonized by the wallet being reviewed by more than one officer after Bentley handed it over, Oswald questioned about it, etc. then (despite lack of specific paperwork on this) it becomes the bagged and logged Oswald arrest wallet evidence.

Ok, you say it can be harmonized, so harmonize it!

There is no hard or positive evidence in this calling for supposition of a second wallet from the crime scene being substituted. You can make a scenario of such a substitution but that is argument from possibility which begs the question of how do you know that must have happened.

Nobody is talking about hard or positive evidence, whatever you mean by that. I said there is a circumstantial case that can be made based on the known information. All the elements of that circumstantial case are coming from statements made by the DPD officers involved. If you feel you can provide an alternative scenario for the circumstantial evidence, then provide it!

If a second wallet entered and was substituted then you have additional complications raised of a coverup of the first one, officers in on coverup of deception etc. it is no evidence to say police were corrupt otherwise so could be here.

There are no additional complications. DPD and Henry Wade have been destroyed by the innocence project in many cases where they got a conviction with manipulated evidence. Please don't give me this "police officers wouldn't do this" BS!

For somebody who claims to view evidence to the benefit of Oswald, all I am seeing is somebody trying to do his damnedest to dismiss any piece of evidence you don't like.

You've written a whole post with vague complaints and denials, but what you haven't done is square the two stories of evidence I have pointed out in my previous post. Apart from throwning Hill under the bus, all you've done is desperately trying to manipulate the time line without actually providing a plausible explanation for anything.

[Greg Doudna]

Martin W.— a couple of misunderstandings. I didn’t mean Hill was wrong on the 4 pm but I didn’t make that clear enough, that ones on me. I thought you cited him from a later time and that is the kind of thing with Hill one needs to verify and fact check more than normal with Hill, but in this case it agrees with the accounts of others, Walker and Rose, of the wallet being near Oswald and looked at. The harmonization would be Baker first got it but then it was still lying around and others were looking at it, then later (your Hill 4 pm) it was turned in for the storage room and safekeeping. My reference to weak chain of custody was to the Oswald revolver of Bentley through to the 4 pm.

At one point you agreed with me, restating what I said, but believed you were disagreeing. You agreed with me that what Baker said gives no information in establishing a substitution, then said it was silly for me to say what you just said too.

What I fail to see is believing a sensational claim made for the first time 30 years later with zero evidence either that witness or anyone else on earth ever said or heard of the same thing at any time in the previous 30 years, and which is well explained as a simple mistake (Barrett in later memory mistakenly combining a real asking from Westbrook about Oswald wallet ID with Barrett’s memory of being with Westbrook and a wallet at the crime scene, as if that is when Westbrook asked). It’s near zero on the credibility scale on that profile grounds of the claim alone. But once beliefs get started, they have long lives.

I think it makes sense it was Oswald’s wallet at the police station straight through from the theater, and no good reason to suppose a substitution. There’s no actual sound reason against it, and the ID said to be from it has been authenticated as Oswald’s handwriting at points. On the “Hidell” ID issue, I would like to understand that better too and I can think of three scenario possibilities in explanation that I would consider “starters” (viable possible cases for), but none of those involve a secret conveyance of a wallet with Oswald and Hidell ID from the crime scene.

There is a real downside to buying into mistaken theories or reconstructions (as I believe this crime scene Oswald ID Barrett claim is), beyond simply being in error: they create blindness to any real leads and potential real solutions to problems. I’ve seen a hundred examples of such a phenomenon. On this wallet issue I think I’m done here, thank you for the civility of the discussion.