CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton

[John Corbett]

I really don't give a shit what you focus on. I just find it silly.

Of course you do... just like I think you're a fanatical zealot full of BS.

Problems. What problems would that be? Are you denying the shells recovered at the scene could only have been fired by the revolver had in his possession when he tried to shoot the arresting officer?

Let's see if I can mess with your narrow minded brain for a bit! No I don't doubt that the shells recovered were matched to the revolver now in evidence. The problem is that there is no chain of custody for the revolver!

WTF???!!!

Are you denying Oswald had the same two makes of bullets that were recovered from Tippit's body?

I can't deny or confirm that. What I do know is that Tippit was shot four time by two different bullets and that the shells found at the scene did not match up with the bullets.

The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's  shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.

Are you denying Oswald's jacket was found on his escape route?

What jacket are you talking about? The jacket found by officers under a car, described as being white, or the gray jacket that Buell Wesley Frazier said Oswald was wearing during the trip to Irving on Thursday afternoon?

Why would you assume Frazier would remember such a detail? Marina IDed the jacket as belonging to her husband.

Are you denying Oswald tried to shoot the arresting officer?

I wasn't present when it allegedly happened. Neither were you, yet you seem to be willing to jump to conclusions without knowing the actual facts.

That was the statement of the arresting officer. is that what you consider "jumping to conclusions"

Are you denying that numerous witnesses IDed Oswald?

No, that's a fact. I just wonder about the way the line ups were conducted. In my experience it is just about impossible that all the witnesses at a line up identify the same person. There mere fact that none of the witnesses was even reluctant makes the whole line up questionable. This, by far, would be the most interesting part of a trial against Oswald for me. I would have loved to observe these witnesses on the stand being questioned by a defense lawyer.

Are you saying that all of these witnesses erroneously IDed Oswald and by a remarkable coincidence, they wrongfully IDed the same guy who had possession of the gun that had fired the shells found at the scene of the crime.

It's amazing the things CTs are willing to convince themselves of in order to argue for Oswald's innocence.

Just which of the items that I listed do you have problems with?

I have just told you.

Yes you did.  And I pointed out how lame your answers were.

OK, you go ahead and investigate it and report back to us what you find.

There is no need to report back to you because you will never ever accept any of it. You are not in a cult for nothing.

I am very comfortable with my beliefs. I don't have to invent cockamamie excuses for not accepting the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

[Martin Weidmann]

WTF???!!!

I figured that would be over your head. You may not like it but a solid chain of custody is an absolute requirement to determine if a piece of evidence is authentic. That's why the revolver and the jacket were marked by several officers, including some who could not have been part of the chain of custody to begin with. That's also why the WC asked the FBI to reconfirm the chain of custody for all sorts of items, including CE 399. LNs frequently claim that the revolver is authentic and the chain of custody is valid because Hill identified his marking on the weapon during his testimony.

Now let's examine what really happened. Bob Carroll, who drove the car from the Texas Theater to City Hall, gave Gerald Hill a revolver which he said it belonged to the suspect and was taken from him inside the theater. But according to Carroll's testimony, that's not what really happend

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

So, here we have the first problem: Carroll can not positively confirm who the person was that held the revolver when he jerked it away from him.

The second problem is that C.T. Walker, who also was in the car, says in his testimony that he had the revolver, when Oswald was brought into City Hall.

And the third problem is that patrolman Bardin delivered a S.W. revolver to the evidence room at 3:25 PM, but Hill claims he marked the revolver and gave it to Lt Baker about half an hour later.

How anybody can call the chain of custody solid is beyond me.

The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's  shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.

Yeah, a very convenient story and one of many the WC came up with. The problem is that there isn't a shred of evidence for it. If they really believe there was a fifth shot (not a single witness said there was) they could easily have searched the Tippit crime scene for the bullet and shell. The reality is that they never bothered!

Why would you assume Frazier would remember such a detail? Marina IDed the jacket as belonging to her husband.

I don't assume anything. Frazier said it in his WC testimony. And yes Maria did identify the jacket as one of two owned by Lee. Now, I will freely admit that Frazier's testimony about the gray jacket is somewhat strange in as much as that he talks about a "more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket" which is an odd way to describe CE 162. However, as Marina confirmed that Lee only had two jackets and Frazier said that on Friday morning Oswald was waring the jacket with big sleeves, I would suggest that he was talking about CE 163, which only leaves the gray jacket CE 162 as the one Oswald would have worn on Thursday afternoon.

That was the statement of the arresting officer. is that what you consider "jumping to conclusions"
Are you saying that all of these witnesses erroneously IDed Oswald and by a remarkable coincidence, they wrongfully IDed the same guy who had possession of the gun that had fired the shells found at the scene of the crime.

If you are talking about McDonalds, the answer is that he never made that statement in official documents. In his WC testimony, he didn't even know for sure that the revolver was pointed at him.

Mr. BALL - Was the pistol out of his waist at that time?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Do you know any way it was pointed?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, I believe the muzzle was toward me, because the sensation came across this way. To make a movement like that, it would have to be the cylinder or the hammer.
Mr. BALL - Across your left palm?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. And my hand was directly over the pistol in this manner. More or less the butt. But not on the butt.

Only later he started to add on to his story and sensationalized it.

It's amazing the things CTs are willing to convince themselves of in order to argue for Oswald's innocence.

And it's amazing to me that LN die hards are so easily fooled. Most of the Henry Wade cases that were overturned by the innocence project involved false identifications and witness manipulation.

Yes you did.  And I pointed out how lame your answers were.

Well, as you are one of the most fanatical zealots in the LN clan I never was under any illusion that you would be willing to accept or even consider anything I have said. That doesn't mean that what I have said is wrong. It just means that you are to narrow minded and superficial to deal with it honestly.

I am very comfortable with my beliefs. I don't have to invent cockamamie excuses for not accepting the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

And still here you are on a daily bases inventing all sorts of pathetic reasons to connect dots that in reality aren't there. Go figure!

[Richard Smith]

WTF???!!!
The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's  shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.
Why would you assume Frazier would remember such a detail? Marina IDed the jacket as belonging to her husband.
That was the statement of the arresting officer. is that what you consider "jumping to conclusions"
Are you saying that all of these witnesses erroneously IDed Oswald and by a remarkable coincidence, they wrongfully IDed the same guy who had possession of the gun that had fired the shells found at the scene of the crime.

It's amazing the things CTs are willing to convince themselves of in order to argue for Oswald's innocence.
Yes you did.  And I pointed out how lame your answers were.
I am very comfortable with my beliefs. I don't have to invent cockamamie excuses for not accepting the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

It's hopeless.  "Martin" plays the endless Inspector Clouseau contrarian routine.  He suspects everyone and he suspects no one.  Nothing ever has to make sense.  He won't admit to suggesting anything even by implication because he realizes the implications of his claims are not only baseless but don't add up. The only objective is to imply doubt.  Like the Monty Python skit, he is "here for an argument" that goes around in circles of lunacy.  Every thread dating back years has that same rabbit hole pattern.  Who can possibly believe that Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and claim there is doubt of his guilt in that crime AND that the investigators who are otherwise trying to frame him suppressed the fact that his wallet was left there.  The logical fallacies are literally mind boggling.  Even on a forum such as this one with all manner of crazy theories that line of argument is mind blowing.

[Martin Weidmann]

It's hopeless.  "Martin" plays the endless Inspector Clouseau contrarian routine.  He suspects everyone and he suspects no one.  Nothing ever has to make sense.  He won't admit to suggesting anything even by implication because he realizes the implications of his claims are not only baseless but don't add up. The only objective is to imply doubt.  Like the Monty Python skit, he is "here for an argument" that goes around in circles of lunacy.  Every thread dating back years has that same rabbit hole pattern.  Who can possibly believe that Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and claim there is doubt of his guilt in that crime AND that the investigators who are otherwise trying to frame him suppressed the fact that his wallet was left there.  The logical fallacies are literally mind boggling.  Even on a forum such as this one with all manner of crazy theories that line of argument is mind blowing.

The logical fallacies are literally mind boggling.

Make you case and give me one example of a logical fallacy

[Lance Payette]

The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's  shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.

I think this highlights the problem that many people have with your posts. You are cocksure that you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, yet your cocksureness includes an awful of "isn't known," "could be," "it's very possible," etc., qualifiers. When CTers - or even fellow LNers - rely on the same sorts of qualifiers, you immediately pooh-pooh what they say and assert that your position is entirely evidence-based.

[Mitch Todd]

Semantics.

What would Walker be doing with only a Hidell ID? Where did he get it?

MW: Semantics.

No, it's proof that you either didn't read very carefully or forgot what you read.


What would Walker be doing with only a Hidell ID? Where did he get it?

Like I said, Hill, Bentley, and Walker show up at the Homicide office with Oswald and the wallet in tow. Baker is in the Homicide office at that time. Bentley gives Baker the wallet, but leaves with Hill for the Personnel office. Walker stays behind in the room to guard Oswald for some amount of time before rejoining Hill and Bentley in the Personnel office.