JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Izraul Hidashi on March 05, 2020, 06:44:30 AM
-
So I read some statements and interviews, and I noticed the cops who arrested Oswald said they took his wallet to verify his identity at the theater. That's an interesting fact, considering Oswald's wallet was also found at officer J.D. Tippet's murder scene.
So could his wallet be in 2 places at the same exact time? Or did he have 2 of the same exact wallets? Is it possible the Dallas police were working to help frame Oswald?
I also noticed something odd in Oswald's murder video. If you listen, you'll hear a car horn right as Oswald is brought out. Then again, while someone shouts "There he is!" And then Ruby steps right in to pop him. The only people in cars down there were cops. Did they set his murder up too?
Could that be how Ruby got into the police garage? Maybe someone should have been questioning the DPD.
-
So I read some statements and interviews, and I noticed the cops who arrested Oswald said they took his wallet to verify his identity at the theater. That's an interesting fact, considering Oswald's wallet was also found at officer J.D. Tippet's murder scene.
So could his wallet be in 2 places at the same exact time? Or did he have 2 of the same exact wallets? Is it possible the Dallas police were working to help frame Oswald?
I also noticed something odd in Oswald's murder video. If you listen, you'll hear horn right as Oswald is brought out. Then again, while someone shouts "There he is!" And then Ruby steps right in to pop him. The only people in cars down there are cops. Did they set his murder up too?
Could that be how Ruby got into the police garage too? Maybe someone should have been questioning the DPD.
There is no confirmation that any wallet was found at the Tippit scene or that any such wallet belonged to Oswald. There is a film of the DPD flipping through something that appears to be a wallet but it could be the wallet of a witness or Tippit's citation book or something else. If the DPD had found Oswald's wallet at the Tippit, what better evidence to link him to that crime? If the intent was to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder, then the presence of Oswald's wallet at the scene would have been gold. Such a wallet would not have been planted but then suppressed. That makes no sense. Some CTer once bizarrely argued they had to suppress the Tippit scene wallet because a wallet was found on Oswald when he was arrested. As though those framing Oswald could not have anticipated he might have his wallet when arrested. LOL. But then that one gets even better where, faced with two Oswald wallets, they suppress the one found at the Tippit murder scene! The one that would do them the most good by linking Oswald directly to that crime. Whew.
-
... faced with two Oswald wallets, they suppress the one found at the Tippit murder scene! The one that would do them the most good by linking Oswald directly to that crime.
Yeah....Every killer I've ever heard of throws their wallet down at the victim and says ..."Take that- you poor dumb... whatever".
-
Yeah....Every killer I've ever heard of throws their wallet down at the victim and says ..."Take that- you poor dumb... whatever".
Not sure what are you babbling about. It is CTers that claim Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit scene. I don't believe Oswald's wallet was found at the scene for the reasons that I noted. It would be great evidence of Oswald's guilt. No reason for the DPD to suppress it and every reason to confirm it was found if that is what had happened. There is a perfectly plausible narrative for Oswald's wallet being left there. He is stopped by a cop and asked for his ID. Where is the ID kept? In his wallet! He pulls his ID out and gives it to the cop. The cop is not satisfied and starts to get out of his car. Oswald thinks his goose is cooked and drops the wallet while pulling his gun. He flees the scene. Didn't happen but there is a plausible narrative for it to be there. What makes no sense whatsoever is the bizarre claim made by some CTers that the DPD found Oswald's wallet at the scene, but these same folks who they believe are otherwise involved in framing Oswald then for some inexplicable reason suppress the best possible evidence to link Oswald to this crime.
-
The following two wallets are in the National Archives--FBI exhibit #114 and #382 .
-
How is that any different from claiming Oswald purchased the rifle under a fake name? Why would Oswald go through the whole act of purchasing a rifle to conceal his identity, only to leave it at the scene with his finger prints everywhere? That's pure idiocy. Who in the heck is going to tip toe around and take dubious caution to purchase a gun. There was no need for that back then. And who would take their rifle to work to kill a president? If you didn't wanna get caught, why would you leave all kinds of evidence that you know will lead back to you? What was the point of even leaving if he know they would trace it back to him?
Which part of that makes sense to you?
And furthermore, Oswald was right handed. To make those shots would require leaning out of the window. Everyone thinks that it was a straight shot. Bull crap. Angles matter. Clearly Oswald was being framed.
-
Quote: "Dallas Police Captain Westbrook found Oswald's brown wallet next to where Tippit had fallen and showed it to FBI Agent Barrett."
So the Dallas Captain was lying? What about what FBI agent Barrett said?
Barrett stated that "according to a witness, the gunman handed something through the open passenger-side window to Tippit inside the car. Somebody told me that they saw him reach in and hand something to Tippit through the window. I don't know who said it, and can't verify it, but it would follow that's how the wallet got there. And, the wallet was there. There's no getting around that. Westbrook had the wallet in his hand and asked me If I know who these people were. I don't think Westbrook would have been asking me questions about something unrelated to the situation and he had the wallet with those names in it. Later, I remember seeing photographs of the contents of the wallet: in which those two names were in it"
So tell me again how silly that is... because it is indeed silly. Let's take it a step further, just to reiterate.
"Photographer Ron Reiland, of WFAA-TV, was the only newsman at the Tippit scene who shot a motion sequence. Reiland exposed approximately two minutes of silent footage that covered the search for Tippit's killer, and the arrest of Oswald. The initial footage shot at Tenth and Patton correlates to police returning to the Tippit shooting scene following the investigation of a suspect at the Jefferson Branch Library.
The opening sequence shows police gathered around Tippit's squad car questioning eyewitness Helen Markham. The officers depicted include Patrolman Joe M. Poe and Leonard E. Jez, Reserve Sergeant Kenneth Croy, and Sergeant Calvin 'Bud' Owens. Within seconds, crime scene search Officer W.E. 'Pete' Barnes and Detective Paul Bentley arrive at the scene. The arrival of Barnes and Bentley pins the time frame of these sequences to 1:42 pm--about eight minutes before Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater....
"Sergeant 'Bud' Owens is seen holding Tippit's service revolver in his left hand and a man's leather wallet In his right.
Owens shows the wallet to Captain George Doughty, who is standing to his left. As Owens hold the wallet open, Doughty runs his finger along one of the celluloid photo slips which usually hold photographs or identification cards. As Doughty studies the item in the plastic sleeve, a third person approaches from Doughty's left.
Doughty pulls his hand back and a plain clothesman reaches into the frame. Owens holds the wallet out toward the third man. Here, the tantalizing footage ends. Barrett, who was unaware of the existence of the footage at the time of our initial interview, confirmed that he spoke to Westbrook about the wallet near the front of Tippit's patrol car--where news film shows the men examining the wallet.
Barrett said, 'It hadn't been very long when Westbrook looked up and saw me and called me over. He had this wallet in his hand. I presumed that they had found it on or near Tippit.' Westbrook asked me, 'Do you know who Lee Harvey Oswald is?' And, 'Do you know who Alek Hidell is?' And I said, 'No, I never heard of them.'"
But go on, tell us about your expertise again. How you know all the facts, because it really is fascinating. :/
-
Not sure what are you babbling about. It is CTers that claim Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit scene. I don't believe Oswald's wallet was found at the scene for the reasons that I noted. It would be great evidence of Oswald's guilt. No reason for the DPD to suppress it and every reason to confirm it was found if that is what had happened. There is a perfectly plausible narrative for Oswald's wallet being left there. He is stopped by a cop and asked for his ID. Where is the ID kept? In his wallet! He pulls his ID out and gives it to the cop. The cop is not satisfied and starts to get out of his car. Oswald thinks his goose is cooked and drops the wallet while pulling his gun. He flees the scene. Didn't happen but there is a plausible narrative for it to be there. What makes no sense whatsoever is the bizarre claim made by some CTers that the DPD found Oswald's wallet at the scene, but these same folks who they believe are otherwise involved in framing Oswald then for some inexplicable reason suppress the best possible evidence to link Oswald to this crime.
What are you babbling about?
Quote: "Dallas Police Captain Westbrook found Oswald's brown wallet next to where Tippit had fallen and showed it to FBI Agent Barrett."
So the Dallas Captain was lying? What about what FBI agent Barrett said?
Barrett stated that "according to a witness, the gunman handed something through the open passenger-side window to Tippit inside the car. Somebody told me that they saw him reach in and hand something to Tippit through the window. I don't know who said it, and can't verify it, but it would follow that's how the wallet got there. And, the wallet was there. There's no getting around that. Westbrook had the wallet in his hand and asked me If I know who these people were. I don't think Westbrook would have been asking me questions about something unrelated to the situation and he had the wallet with those names in it. Later, I remember seeing photographs of the contents of the wallet: in which those two names were in it"
So tell me again how silly that is... because it is indeed silly. Let's take it a step further, just to reiterate.
"Photographer Ron Reiland, of WFAA-TV, was the only newsman at the Tippit scene who shot a motion sequence. Reiland exposed approximately two minutes of silent footage that covered the search for Tippit's killer, and the arrest of Oswald. The initial footage shot at Tenth and Patton correlates to police returning to the Tippit shooting scene following the investigation of a suspect at the Jefferson Branch Library.
The opening sequence shows police gathered around Tippit's squad car questioning eyewitness Helen Markham. The officers depicted include Patrolman Joe M. Poe and Leonard E. Jez, Reserve Sergeant Kenneth Croy, and Sergeant Calvin 'Bud' Owens. Within seconds, crime scene search Officer W.E. 'Pete' Barnes and Detective Paul Bentley arrive at the scene. The arrival of Barnes and Bentley pins the time frame of these sequences to 1:42 pm--about eight minutes before Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater....
"Sergeant 'Bud' Owens is seen holding Tippit's service revolver in his left hand and a man's leather wallet In his right.
Owens shows the wallet to Captain George Doughty, who is standing to his left. As Owens hold the wallet open, Doughty runs his finger along one of the celluloid photo slips which usually hold photographs or identification cards. As Doughty studies the item in the plastic sleeve, a third person approaches from Doughty's left.
Doughty pulls his hand back and a plain clothesman reaches into the frame. Owens holds the wallet out toward the third man. Here, the tantalizing footage ends. Barrett, who was unaware of the existence of the footage at the time of our initial interview, confirmed that he spoke to Westbrook about the wallet near the front of Tippit's patrol car--where news film shows the men examining the wallet.
Barrett said, 'It hadn't been very long when Westbrook looked up and saw me and called me over. He had this wallet in his hand. I presumed that they had found it on or near Tippit.' Westbrook asked me, 'Do you know who Lee Harvey Oswald is?' And, 'Do you know who Alek Hidell is?' And I said, 'No, I never heard of them.'"
But go on, tell us about your expertise again. How you know all the facts, because it really is fascinating. :/
So it's your beliefs v. facts. Which is more relevant? I really don't understand why people with limited knowledge of certain things always have to jump in and open their mouths in a matter of fact way. I'm sure you've held your beliefs for a lot longer than it would take for you to simply do some research.
You could have googled it to learn the truth in all of 10 minutes. How many years have you been holding on to that belief? I'm not sure what, or who, a "CTer" is, but they seem to know a lot more about this subject than you do. Maybe it's time to check your other beliefs as well, so we can all have a real conversation based on facts, not beliefs.
Just saying. It would be more beneficial than always trying to hate on people who know more than you. Clearly the finding of a wallet with Oswald's photo and name is based on fact. And now that you know the truth about it, I'd be happy to hear what your new opinion is. You don't think anyone was trying to frame Oswald, but clearly someone was.
-
Not sure what are you babbling about.
I thought babble was all you understood. It is CTers that claim Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit scene.
You state that as if it is a universal belief...it isn't. It would be great evidence of Oswald's guilt.
Along with the jacket huh?
What are you babbling about? You could have googled it to learn the truth
He won't do that but I did....
Yet the Dallas authorities never wrote a report about any wallet found at the Tippit murder scene. Perhaps that was oversight. Perhaps not. FBI Man: Dallas cop lied. ..After 50 years, an FBI agent on the scene believes that the Dallas officer who brought Oswald to the police station is lying about finding the wallet in Oswald’s possession.
https://jfkfacts.org/oswalds-wallet-planted-at-the-tippit-crime-scene/
-
I thought babble was all you understood. You state that as if it is a universal belief...it isn't. Along with the jacket huh?
He won't do that but I did....https://jfkfacts.org/oswalds-wallet-planted-at-the-tippit-crime-scene/
Now you see... that's an interesting fact. And that's exactly the point I'm trying to get at. What you found claims an FBI Man said that. But which FBI man on the scene? Because what I found has names. And the man who stated that there was no doubt a wallet found on the scene was an FBI agent. And the Captain said he did. What I found gives a pretty detailed account and includes names. And a news man supposedly filmed them looking at a wallet. I wonder if we can find that video clip.
Now we know if someone was trying to frame Oswald, there would be conflicting statements. And there are.
The FBI agent on the scene claimed there was 2 names in that wallet. Oswald and Hidell. And we know the FBI claimed Oswald purchased that spombleprofglidnoctobunsty rifle under the name Hidell. So I'm inclined to think that there was a wallet found on the scene, and it was planted. But since it clashes with the arresting officers report, the FBI tried to save face. Obviously someone tried to pin that cops murder on Oswald. Because like you said, nobody is just going to throw their wallet down.
Here's another theory. A witnessed claimed she saw the gunman hand something to officer Tippit. Maybe that was the wallet. Maybe the guy who handed it to him did so for that very specific reason. To frame Oswald. And the police decided not to report it officially because it proves conspiracy. You gotta take into account that if they're trying to pin something on someone, there's going to be conflicting stories, lies and retractions.
-
How is that any different from claiming Oswald purchased the rifle under a fake name? Why would Oswald go through the whole act of purchasing a rifle to conceal his identity, only to leave it at the scene with his finger prints everywhere? That's pure idiocy. Who in the heck is going to tip toe around and take dubious caution to purchase a gun. There was no need for that back then. And who would take their rifle to work to kill a president? If you didn't wanna get caught, why would you leave all kinds of evidence that you know will lead back to you? What was the point of even leaving if he know they would trace it back to him?
Which part of that makes sense to you?
And furthermore, Oswald was right handed. To make those shots would require leaning out of the window. Everyone thinks that it was a straight shot. Bull crap. Angles matter. Clearly Oswald was being framed.
It only makes sense if you know what you are talking about including the sequence of events. That apparently excludes you. When Oswald bought the rifle he did not know he would be leaving it any crime scene to be discovered. He didn't even know JFK would be coming to Dallas when he purchased his rifle. He bought the rifle with the intent to shoot Gen. Walker and then hide it. You are actually trying to argue that the use of an alias to buy a rifle lends itself to his innocence? Wow. Why do you think he used an alias to buy it?
-
A witnessed claimed she saw the gunman hand something to officer Tippit.
Which witness was that?
-
When Oswald bought the rifle
LOL
He bought the rifle with the intent to shoot Gen. Walker and then hide it.
“Richard” is in mindreading mode again.
-
Which witness was that?
I'm starting to wonder if people actually read things. lol "eyewitness Helen Markham."
-
It only makes sense if you know what you are talking about including the sequence of events. That apparently excludes you. When Oswald bought the rifle he did not know he would be leaving it any crime scene to be discovered. He didn't even know JFK would be coming to Dallas when he purchased his rifle. He bought the rifle with the intent to shoot Gen. Walker and then hide it. You are actually trying to argue that the use of an alias to buy a rifle lends itself to his innocence? Wow. Why do you think he used an alias to buy it?
Oh...well please go on and enlighten us with your knowledge about Oswald's intentions. Since you know what you're talking about.
So Oswald really was the one that bought that rifle huh? And did you accompany him to purchase it? Tell us why Oswald felt the need to purchase a rifle under an assumed name. What exactly was he worried about? That someone would trace a random bullet back to an unregistered rifle? Why wasn't it the same rifle that HE ordered from the ad? Since you're obviously so informed, why did the company send the wrong rifle to Mr. Hidell?
How do you even know he really purchased it? Because according to your genius, Oswald purchased that rifle under an assumed name because he was going to shoot the General. But he didn't want anyone to know he purchased that rifle, yet he showed it to everyone. Even posed all fancy like with it.
How did Oswald miss the General, being such a damn good crack shot from the 6th floor? What else can you verify about Oswald's actions?
Can you share with us why Oswald decided to keep the fake ID for his rifle purchase in a wallet? Why did he keep his 38 revolver on him after killing a cop with it? What his mind set was there, Nostradamus lol But you do make an interesting point. Oswald didn't know the President was coming. In fact, he probably didn't even know the exact route of the motorcade. Yet he still brought his trusty General killer to work, just in case.
He missed the General, but thought..., I won't miss the President... wherever he is.
-
I'm starting to wonder if people actually read things. lol "eyewitness Helen Markham."
Cite please. When did Markham said that the gunman handed something to Tippit?
-
Cite please. When did Markham said that the gunman handed something to Tippit?
How I came to the conclusion that the witness FBI AGENT BARRETT was talking about is easy. But I know my brain works a little fast and I tend to lose people because I fail to describe what's going on in my head. So I'll go over it slowly for anyone who wasn't able to figure it out on their own.
Quote: "Dallas Police Captain Westbrook found Oswald's brown wallet next to where Tippit had fallen and showed it to FBI Agent Barrett."
Okay. Whether or not they really found a wallet isn't for me to say. Personally I don't believe they did. I think both the cops and FBI were full of spombleprofglidnoctobuns. And neither were smart enough to figure anything out, so they just did what most of those low IQ imbeciles do... make spombleprofglidnoctobuns up until the case fit their beliefs.
Let's continue.
FBI agent Barrett stated that "according to a witness, the gunman handed something through the open passenger-side window to Tippit inside the car. Somebody told me that they saw him reach in and hand something to Tippit through the window. I don't know who said it, and can't verify it, but it would follow that's how the wallet got there. And, the wallet was there. There's no getting around that. Westbrook had the wallet in his hand and asked me If I know who these people were. I don't think Westbrook would have been asking me questions about something unrelated to the situation and he had the wallet with those names in it. Later, I remember seeing photographs of the contents of the wallet: in which those two names were in it"
Did we get that so far? Clue #1. The words of FBI AGENT ROBERT BARRETT. I'm not saying what he claimed is true or isn't. I'm saying is that he claimed it. But we can't trust a damn thing anyone one them said. Those idiots either believed Oswald was guilty, or trying to frame him.
Now clearly he said, he doesn't know who said it, just that someone did. But we can easily figure it out.
"Photographer Ron Reiland, of WFAA-TV, was the only newsman at the Tippit scene who shot a motion sequence. Clue #2.
Reiland exposed approximately two minutes of silent footage that covered the search for Tippit's killer, and the arrest of Oswald. The initial footage shot at Tenth and Patton correlates to police returning to the Tippit shooting scene following the investigation of a suspect at the Jefferson Branch Library. Clue #3. Two minutes of footage.
The opening sequence shows police gathered around Tippit's squad car questioning eyewitness Helen Markham. Bam! There it is.
How do we know. Because #1. Barrnett mentioned he wasn't even aware that he was being filmed. #2. The film wasn't that long. #3. Barrnett Said he heard a witness say that before he actually looked at the wallet.
Not hard to figure out, or it shouldn't be. None of it is rocket science. It shouldn't be that difficult for grown ass men to figure these simple things out. The efforts to make Oswald look guilty are indisputable. And anyone who can't see that is a sleepwalking sheep.
I know that may come off as arrogant, but it's not. Yes, I have a few issues I know. Like my annoyance with people who are slow. My dad pushed chess on me before I could even walk, so my brain is constantly moving faster than I can form explanations for my thoughts. I tend to forget people don't automatically see things. I'm working on it. But I'm not really here to make friends or shoot the spombleprofglidnoctobuns either. I solve spombleprofglidnoctobuns then move on. I don't need to spend years looking for answers to the same simple ass questions.
Some people believe the silly ass stories from the cops and FBI, how 1 man who couldn't shoot worth a spombleprofglidnoctobuns was a lone assassin. It takes a special person to believe that nonsense. Some people look at a man like Trump, whose told over 15,000 lies already, and think..."yeah, he's trustworthy."
-
I know that may come off as arrogant,
You think? :D
It would have been sufficient to just say that Barrett claimed that a witness said someone handed Tippit something through the window and that witness may have been Markham. But if it came from Helen “utter screwball” Markham, I wouldn’t put a whole lot of stock in it. She also claimed the gunman leaned in a rolled-up window, talked to Tippit after he was dead, and sat there by herself screaming for help for 15-20 minutes.
-
FBI agent Barrett stated that "according to a witness, the gunman handed something through the open passenger-side window to Tippit inside the car. Somebody told me that they saw him reach in and hand something to Tippit through the window. I don't know who said it, and can't verify it, but it would follow that's how the wallet got there. And, the wallet was there. There's no getting around that. Westbrook had the wallet in his hand and asked me If I know who these people were. I don't think Westbrook would have been asking me questions about something unrelated to the situation and he had the wallet with those names in it. Later, I remember seeing photographs of the contents of the wallet: in which those two names were in it"
Oswald rested his hands on the open window of the car. This may have been misinterpreted as Oswald handing something to Tippit.
Couldn't Oswald just have two wallets though? Lots of people do.
-
Oswald rested his hands on the open window of the car. This may have been misinterpreted as Oswald handing something to Tippit.
Couldn't Oswald just have two wallets though? Lots of people do.
Oswald rested his hands on the open window of the car. This may have been misinterpreted as Oswald handing something to Tippit.
Oswald Tippit's killer rested his hands on the open window cowl and right front fender of the car. This may have been misinterpreted as Oswald
The young man handing something to Tippit.
It is a fact that there were some good identifiable palm and finger prints found on the cowl and fender of Tippit's patrol car...... ( apparently deposited by Tippit's killer when he leaned down and talked to Tippit through the wing window.) We can be 100% certain that these prints were NOT deposited by Lee Oswald, because if they had been Lee's prints they would have been solid proof that Lee had left them on Tippit's car....And the cops would have shouted the information from the roof tops.
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit-12_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit-11_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit-13_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit-03.jpg)
-
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit-12_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit-11_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit-13_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/tippit-03.jpg)
Hosty?? You believe Hosty? The FBI agent who swore that his scribbled notes meant that there were "two other men" with Caster when they were examining some rifles outside Mr truly's office at lunch time on Wednesday Nov 20, 1963. Even though Mr Caster himself said that there were far more than just TWO other men present at that time. Captain Fritz confronted Lee Oswald with the Carcano, and Lee Oswald had told Fritz that he had seen this "rifle and two others ( rifles) outside Mr Truley's office on the 1st floor of the TSBD, the day before yesterday"
Hosty claimed that Lee was referring to "two Other men" and not two other rifles....
I overlooked the most glaring example of Hosty being a liar..... He destroyed vital evidence when he flushed Lee Oswald's note down the toilet ( At least he said that's what he did) I doubt that he actually did that but when your dealing with a liar, how the hell can anybody be sure what is truth and what is a lie??
-
It is a fact that there were some good identifiable palm and finger prints found on the cowl and fender of Tippit's patrol car...... ( apparently deposited by Tippit's killer when he leaned down and talked to Tippit through the wing window.) We can be 100% certain that these prints were NOT deposited by Lee Oswald, because if they had been Lee's prints they would have been solid proof that Lee had left them on Tippit's car....And the cops would have shouted the information from the roof tops.
I've never heard of any finger prints on Tippits car. Source?
-
Okay... but there were people saying that the whole Oswald wallet thing at the Tippit murder scene never happened, right? It wasn't true?
But we have the cops looking at it here, right? https://photos.app.goo.gl/591zCj89ugBYPiS59
And here's a hand written note by the first cop on the scene who claims to have found it. https://photos.app.goo.gl/CJcULTVrrtGE1Qps6
"First on the scene... found Oswald's wallet" So that did happen, right?
Now I wasn't saying it was really Oswald's wallet. I was just pointing out that cops did indeed try to frame him. There's no way he had 2 wallets, so one of them was bogus, thus proving that Oswald was being framed. Right or wrong?
-
Okay... but there were people saying that the whole Oswald wallet thing at the Tippit murder scene never happened, right? It wasn't true?
But we have the cops looking at it here, right? https://photos.app.goo.gl/591zCj89ugBYPiS59
And here's a hand written note by the first cop on the scene who claims to have found it. https://photos.app.goo.gl/CJcULTVrrtGE1Qps6
"First on the scene... found Oswald's wallet" So that did happen, right?
Now I wasn't saying it was really Oswald's wallet. I was just pointing out that cops did indeed try to frame him. There's no way he had 2 wallets, so one of them was bogus, thus proving that Oswald was being framed. Right or wrong?
Again, there is no confirmation that this is Oswald's wallet. You have a film/picture of the DPD at the scene looking at some object that appears to be a wallet or something similar. It could belong anyone there including a witness or perhaps be something like Tippit's citation book. It makes no sense to suggest someone was trying to frame Oswald but for some unspecified reason the DPD would suppress an Oswald wallet found at the murder scene. That would be fantastic evidence against Oswald. His wallet left at the scene of the crime.
It's laughable to suggest that whomever planted the wallet could not have anticipated that Oswald might have another wallet on him when arrested. And when in the apparent position to suppress one of these two wallets, they would decide to suppress the one planted at the murder scene! Wow - what a plan. In which those framing Oswald suppress great evidence of his guilt that they planted at the murder scene for that very purpose. Logic dictates it's not Oswald's wallet but belongs to someone else at the scene. Likely a witness or Tippit.
-
It's laughable to suggest that whomever planted the wallet could not have anticipated that Oswald might have another wallet on him when arrested.
Absolutely, Dick! For 99% of the male population who go around with one, single wallet in their back pocket, it's just pure coincidence that the guy who was accused of killing the president and a policeman JUST SO HAPPENED to be walking around with two wallets. The same guy who supposedly was just some crazed schmuck who said he "...emphatically denied these charges."
Hahahaha!!!
-
I've never heard of any finger prints on Tippits car. Source?
Sgt Barns from the crime lab found some smudged prints....
https://books.google.com/books?id=0UBNUSOMNhYC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=fingerprints+found+on+tippits+car+jfk&source=bl&ots=PraKw4Rjsc&sig=ACfU3U3N_awoLzpZYTZc1bLMbtXH8KugVg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjiqKao-4jpAhVLcq0KHdUbCPMQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q
-
It's laughable to suggest that whomever planted the wallet could not have anticipated that Oswald might have another wallet on him when arrested.
Absolutely, Dick! For 99% of the male population who go around with one, single wallet in their back pocket, it's just pure coincidence that the guy who was accused of killing the president and a policeman JUST SO HAPPENED to be walking around with two wallets. The same guy who supposedly was just some crazed schmuck who said he "...emphatically denied these charges."
Hahahaha!!!
Not just two. Five!
Ruth Paine turned over 2 more, and Marina an additional one that he left her money in.
-
Wasn't aware it was five. Amazing.
-
It's laughable to suggest that whomever planted the wallet could not have anticipated that Oswald might have another wallet on him when arrested.
Absolutely, Dick! For 99% of the male population who go around with one, single wallet in their back pocket, it's just pure coincidence that the guy who was accused of killing the president and a policeman JUST SO HAPPENED to be walking around with two wallets. The same guy who supposedly was just some crazed schmuck who said he "...emphatically denied these charges."
Hahahaha!!!
This is pretty simple. If someone planted Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene to frame him, it would not take Nostradamus for them to know that Oswald would likely have a second wallet on him when arrested or killed. That would not have been cause to abandon their plan to "find" an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene. Such a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene would have been fantastic evidence to link Oswald to that crime. A wallet in his pocket upon arrest provides no probative value. But it gets even better. Whomever planted the wallet at the Tippit scene in this fairy tale is also apparently in a position to suppress one of the wallets. And which one do they decide to suppress? Wait for it - wait for it - the wallet they themselves have planted with its extreme probative value! HA HA HA to that. That's ridiculous as a narrative if you give more than three seconds of thought. Unfortunately, it's not Oswald's wallet. If the DPD had said it was found there, however, nuts would be here arguing that he wouldn't have left it at the scene with profound arguments like "Oswald's wallet. LOL." What difference does it make in this context how many wallets Oswald owned and kept at home etc? None.
-
A wallet in his pocket upon arrest provides no probative value.
Probably the most coherent thing "Richard" has ever said.
If the DPD had said it was found there, however, nuts would be here arguing that he wouldn't have left it at the scene with profound arguments like "Oswald's wallet. LOL."
Ridiculous unproven assertions like "Oswald's rifle" don't need profound arguments to be laughed at. What they need is for the people making the assertions to prove them.
-
This is pretty simple. If someone planted Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene to frame him, it would not take Nostradamus for them to know that Oswald would likely have a second wallet on him when arrested or killed. That would not have been cause to abandon their plan to "find" an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene. Such a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene would have been fantastic evidence to link Oswald to that crime. A wallet in his pocket upon arrest provides no probative value. But it gets even better. Whomever planted the wallet at the Tippit scene in this fairy tale is also apparently in a position to suppress one of the wallets. And which one do they decide to suppress? Wait for it - wait for it - the wallet they themselves have planted with its extreme probative value! HA HA HA to that. That's ridiculous as a narrative if you give more than three seconds of thought. Unfortunately, it's not Oswald's wallet. If the DPD had said it was found there, however, nuts would be here arguing that he wouldn't have left it at the scene with profound arguments like "Oswald's wallet. LOL." What difference does it make in this context how many wallets Oswald owned and kept at home etc? None.
But it gets even better. Whomever planted the wallet at the Tippit scene in this fairy tale is also apparently in a position to suppress one of the wallets. And which one do they decide to suppress? Wait for it - wait for it - the wallet they themselves have planted with its extreme probative value! HA HA HA to that. That's ridiculous as a narrative if you give more than three seconds of thought.
Who said that the wallet found at the Tippit scene is the one that was suppressed?
Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him during the ride to the police station. The next day he is interviewed on television and asked what he found in the wallet to which he replies; the usual stuff; a credit card and a driver's license. Not a word about any document with the name Hidell on it. Bentley never files a report about what he found in the wallet, nor does he testify before WC or even gave them even a statement. There isn't a word on paper anywhere about the content of the wallet Bentley took from Oswald. Think about that, for a minute!!!!!
On the other hand, FBI agent Barrett is on record saying that Captain Westbrook was looking at a wallet at the Tippit murder scene and asked him if he had ever heard of Oswald or Hidell. FBI Hosty confirms in his book that Barrett told him about it and DPD officer Croy confirmed, prior to his death, that he was the one who found that wallet. But for Richard that's not corroboration. It's just three cops not telling the truth...
So, what happened next? Gus Rose had a day off and is called back to work. When he gets to the station, Oswald had just been brought in. Somebody (nobody knows who!) gave Rose a wallet and bingo, now there suddenly is one wallet which contains no credit card or drivers license but it does contain a fake ID for Hidell.... Go figure.
Now, I wonder what could have happened there.... Who was the person that gave Gus Rose the wallet? Who was the officer that presented the wallet to the evidence room, and why wasn't that Paul Bentley, as it should have been?
Guys like Richard will ignore and deny these facts (because that's what the are, as it is all on record in one way or another) and call them a "fairy tale" rather than trying to explain what possibly happened here. It must be easier for him to just laugh it off and dream up some so-called "logic" why it couldn't have happened that way.
Unfortunately, it's not Oswald's wallet.
It may not have been, but how would you know that?
So, who did it belong to? It wasn't Tippit's because his wallet was identified by Marie Tippit and is at the National Archives. If it belonged to somebody else, why is there no record of anybody claiming it or of the wallet being returned?
Now all we have to do is wait for another rant by Richard telling us that it is all too stupid and none of it could have happened.
-
Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him during the ride to the police station. The next day he is interviewed on television and asked what he found in the wallet to which he replies; the usual stuff; a credit card and a driver's license.
Was that a Visa or Mastercard? State of Texas or Louisiana drivers license?
There is a Living History with Paul Bentley by the Sixth Floor Museum on youtube but I can't get it to upload here for some reason.
Find it and listen to his BS: with 6th Fl curator Steven [Fagen]? swallowing every spoonful.
If you watch that video, at 8:20 Bentley states that while collecting evidence at the Tippit scene... some patrol division captain came and told him
that "We've looked everywhere for Oswald but we just got a report that there was a suspect at the Texas Theater..."
I am still wondering why they would have been looking for Oswald in particular at that particular time?
-
Again, there is no confirmation that this is Oswald's wallet. You have a film/picture of the DPD at the scene looking at some object that appears to be a wallet or something similar. It could belong anyone there including a witness or perhaps be something like Tippit's citation book. It makes no sense to suggest someone was trying to frame Oswald but for some unspecified reason the DPD would suppress an Oswald wallet found at the murder scene. That would be fantastic evidence against Oswald. His wallet left at the scene of the crime.
It's laughable to suggest that whomever planted the wallet could not have anticipated that Oswald might have another wallet on him when arrested. And when in the apparent position to suppress one of these two wallets, they would decide to suppress the one planted at the murder scene! Wow - what a plan. In which those framing Oswald suppress great evidence of his guilt that they planted at the murder scene for that very purpose. Logic dictates it's not Oswald's wallet but belongs to someone else at the scene. Likely a witness or Tippit.
Okay, when you say there's no confirmation I assume you mean that you didn't look at the photo I posted. What does it say? The cop who found it wrote ...
"First on the scene. Recovered Oswald's wallet." So which part of that statement isn't confirmation that they claimed it was Oswald's wallet? Again, no one is saying that it WAS Oswald's wallet. Except for the police who were trying to frame him. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what's so hard about this? The cops did in fact try to claim they found Oswald's wallet. Why do people keep trying to deny it? The proof is here. It's there.
I get why the Oswald swallowers want to keep ignoring it. Because it proves them wrong. But that's life. Facts are facts. We're trying put things together, not validate Oswald swallowers.
-
Okay, when you say there's no confirmation I assume you mean that you didn't look at the photo I posted. What does it say? The cop who found it wrote ...
"First on the scene. Recovered Oswald's wallet." So which part of that statement isn't confirmation that they claimed it was Oswald's wallet? Again, no one is saying that it WAS Oswald's wallet. Except for the police who were trying to frame him. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what's so hard about this? The cops did in fact try to claim they found Oswald's wallet. Why do people keep trying to deny it? The proof is here. It's there.
I get why the Oswald swallowers want to keep ignoring it. Because it proves them wrong. But that's life. Facts are facts. We're trying put things together, not validate Oswald swallowers.
That's a hell of a way to frame someone by suppressing great evidence of their guilt. His wallet found at the murder scene. This story originates from FBI agent Barrett many years later but he did not mention it in his own report on Nov. 22. He did not mention it in his WC testimony. He would have known the probative value of a suspect's wallet found at the murder scene. Even decades later he made clear that he never handled the wallet or ever saw its contents. His recollection is that he was asked about Oswald/Hidell by Westbrook as he looked through a wallet. It's entirely possible he saw the DPD handling a wallet at the scene, and after Oswald's arrest assumed that this wallet had been dropped by the murderer who he later learned was Oswald. Thus, he conflated events decades later and it becomes "Oswald's wallet" in his memory.
Here is where you can think for yourself though. If Oswald's wallet had been dropped at the murder scene - either by Oswald because he was the killer or someone else trying to frame him - what is the first thing the DPD would have done when they discovered it? Think real hard it's not difficult. They would have radioed in an APB for a suspect whose name is found in the wallet (i.e. Oswald). However, no such call was ever made. At the very least, someone would have mentioned this highly probative evidence in a written report after the fact. They didn't. Not Barrett or any of the DPD officers at the scene. If the purpose of the wallet was to frame Oswald, then any wallet found at the scene with his ID would not have been hidden by the DPD (certainly not by anyone who had left it there to frame him!) but trumpeted to the entire world as evidence of Oswald's guilt. It wasn't. What does that tell you? It wasn't Oswald's wallet.
-
That's a hell of a way to frame someone by suppressing great evidence of their guilt. His wallet found at the murder scene. This story originates from FBI agent Barrett many years later but he did not mention it in his own report on Nov. 22. He did not mention it in his WC testimony. He would have known the probative value of a suspect's wallet found at the murder scene. Even decades later he made clear that he never handled the wallet or ever saw its contents. His recollection is that he was asked about Oswald/Hidell by Westbrook as he looked through a wallet. It's entirely possible he saw the DPD handling a wallet at the scene, and after Oswald's arrest assumed that this wallet had been dropped by the murderer who he later learned was Oswald. Thus, he conflated events decades later and it becomes "Oswald's wallet" in his memory.
Here is where you can think for yourself though. If Oswald's wallet had been dropped at the murder scene - either by Oswald because he was the killer or someone else trying to frame him - what is the first thing the DPD would have done when they discovered it? Think real hard it's not difficult. They would have radioed in an APB for a suspect whose name is found in the wallet (i.e. Oswald). However, no such call was ever made. At the very least, someone would have mentioned this highly probative evidence in a written report after the fact. They didn't. Not Barrett or any of the DPD officers at the scene. If the purpose of the wallet was to frame Oswald, then any wallet found at the scene with his ID would not have been hidden by the DPD (certainly not by anyone who had left it there to frame him!) but trumpeted to the entire world as evidence of Oswald's guilt. It wasn't. What does that tell you? It wasn't Oswald's wallet.
what is the first thing the DPD would have done when they discovered it? Think real hard it's not difficult. They would have radioed in an APB for a suspect whose name is found in the wallet (i.e. Oswald). However, no such call was ever made.
There goes Richard again with his special brand of "logic". Clearly you have no idea about law enforcement and their code of conduct. Back in those days police radio was being listened to by all sorts of people... Some things you simply don't put out on the air! What if the wallet was unrelated to the shooting? You really are truly clueless.
At the very least, someone would have mentioned this highly probative evidence in a written report after the fact.
Just like they did with the wallet taken from Oswald in the car, right?...... Oh wait, I forgot, there's not a word about that anywhere on paper.
If the purpose of the wallet was to frame Oswald, then any wallet found at the scene with his ID would not have been hidden by the DPD (certainly not by anyone who had left it there to frame him!) but trumpeted to the entire world as evidence of Oswald's guilt. It wasn't. What does that tell you?
It tells me that you are an idiot. Police normally do not share evidence in an ongoing investigation with the media and general public. And before you go there, yes, the DPD messed up big time in Oswald's case, but even there they did not share all the information they had.
-
what is the first thing the DPD would have done when they discovered it? Think real hard it's not difficult. They would have radioed in an APB for a suspect whose name is found in the wallet (i.e. Oswald). However, no such call was ever made.
There goes Richard again with his special brand of "logic". Clearly you have no idea about law enforcement and their code of conduct. Back in those days police radio was being listened to by all sorts of people... Some things you simply don't put out on the air! What if the wallet was unrelated to the shooting? You really are truly clueless.
At the very least, someone would have mentioned this highly probative evidence in a written report after the fact.
Just like they did with the wallet taken from Oswald in the car, right?...... Oh wait, I forgot, there's not a word about that anywhere on paper.
If the purpose of the wallet was to frame Oswald, then any wallet found at the scene with his ID would not have been hidden by the DPD (certainly not by anyone who had left it there to frame him!) but trumpeted to the entire world as evidence of Oswald's guilt. It wasn't. What does that tell you?
It tells me that you are an idiot. Police normally do not share evidence in an ongoing investigation with the media and general public. And before you go there, yes, the DPD messed up big time in Oswald's case, but even there they did not share all the information they had.
Martin/Roger has posted some truly idiotic, baseless, contrarian claims over the years but the notion that the police would not broadcast on their own radio frequencies the identity of a potential suspect on the loose after killing a police officer takes the cake. HA HA HA. Wow. Obviously, the police use their radios for the purpose of alerting one another to ongoing events including the identity of a potentially dangerous suspect on the loose. The very essence of police communication is to protect the public and themselves from a dangerous person. If they had found a wallet at the scene but the person it belonged to was missing, it would not take Sherlock Holmes to realize that was a potential suspect. But here we are informed they wouldn't communicate this information to anyone because they are concerned that someone might overhear! Instead they allow a potential suspect in a cop killing to run amok in the community due to an apparent concern for his rights. That one is a keeper.
And that doesn't even get into why the DPD and others would not later document finding Oswald's wallet at the scene. Radio silence on that one (so to speak!). The DPD who this contrarian otherwise casts dispersions upon implying they are involved in framing of Oswald never confirms that they found Oswald's wallet at the murder scene even though it would be fantastic evidence in that crime.
Keep in mind that this contrarian won't take any position on whether this actually is Oswald's wallet or not because that would require him to make an argument to support his position and he is too lazy and cowardly to do that. Easier to take issue with anything suggested by others. But this is one of the stupidest rebuttals in the history of this forum. And that is saying a great deal. Congrats Roger.
-
Martin/Roger has posted some truly idiotic, baseless, contrarian claims over the years but the notion that the police would not broadcast on their own radio frequencies the identity of a potential suspect on the loose after killing a police officer takes the cake. HA HA HA. Wow. Obviously, the police use their radios for the purpose of alerting one another to ongoing events including the identity of a potentially dangerous suspect on the loose. The very essence of police communication is to protect the public and themselves from a dangerous person. If they had found a wallet at the scene but the person it belonged to was missing, it would not take Sherlock Holmes to realize that was a potential suspect. But here we are informed they wouldn't communicate this information to anyone because they are concerned that someone might overhear! Instead they allow a potential suspect in a cop killing to run amok in the community due to an apparent concern for his rights. That one is a keeper.
And that doesn't even get into why the DPD and others would not later document finding Oswald's wallet at the scene. Radio silence on that one (so to speak!). The DPD who this contrarian otherwise casts dispersions upon implying they are involved in framing of Oswald never confirms that they found Oswald's wallet at the murder scene even though it would be fantastic evidence in that crime.
Keep in mind that this contrarian won't take any position on whether this actually is Oswald's wallet or not because that would require him to make an argument to support his position and he is too lazy and cowardly to do that. Easier to take issue with anything suggested by others. But this is one of the stupidest rebuttals in the history of this forum. And that is saying a great deal. Congrats Roger.
Thank you for putting your complete ignorance on full display by this pathetic ad hominem rant.
But I'll give you an opportunity nevertheless to demonstrate your special kind of "wisdom" to all of us;
Obviously, the police use their radios for the purpose of alerting one another to ongoing events including the identity of a potentially dangerous suspect on the loose.
Oswald was missing from the roll call at the TSBD. Fritz wanted to talk to him and they knew his name. Now, mr. know-it-all, show us where they put Oswald's name on the air! You can take as much time as you need to weasel out of it, but ultimately you need to put up or shut up! Go on then....
As far as everything else in your rant is concerned, get back to me when you have something of any significance to say.
-
Thank you for putting your complete ignorance on full display by this pathetic ad hominem rant.
But I'll give you an opportunity nevertheless to demonstrate your special kind of "wisdom" to all of us;
Obviously, the police use their radios for the purpose of alerting one another to ongoing events including the identity of a potentially dangerous suspect on the loose.
Oswald was missing from the roll call at the TSBD. Fritz wanted to talk to him and they knew his name. Now, mr. know-it-all, show us where they put Oswald's name on the air! You can take as much time as you need to weasel out of it, but ultimately you need to put up or shut up! Go on then....
As far as everything else in your rant is concerned, get back to me when you have something of any significance to say.
Hey Richard, have you already figured out why Oswald's name wasn't broadcast on the DPD radio after he was missing at the TSBD roll call and became a person of interest?
-
Not just two. Five!
Ruth Paine turned over 2 more, and Marina an additional one that he left her money in.
Which, if true, tends to support the idea that Oswald felt it necessary to be able to "prove" to authorities and potential witnesses any given day that he was someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald.
-- MWT ;)
-
5 wallets, not 5 ID cards.
-
5 wallets, not 5 ID cards.
Not at that point, anyway.
Maybe he had a leather fetish?
-- MWT ;)
-
Hey Richard, have you already figured out why Oswald's name wasn't broadcast on the DPD radio after he was missing at the TSBD roll call and became a person of interest?
Bump for Richard Smith
-
Hey Richard, have you already figured out why Oswald's name wasn't broadcast on the DPD radio after he was missing at the TSBD roll call and became a person of interest?
Yes, it is pretty obvious. There is a vast difference between someone who is merely a possible person of interest and a suspect. The circumstances dictate that distinction. Not being accounted for at his place of work made Oswald a person of interest. It was suspicious but didn't necessarily provide a direct link to the crime. The DPD noted it and intended to follow up. Which they did.
You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize, however, that finding an unaccounted for wallet at the scene of a murdered police officer that has just been committed minutes beforehand on a public street makes the individual identified in the wallet a suspect. The circumstances point to a connection between the wallet and the crime. The DPD could also quickly check with witnesses at that location to determine whether the person in any photograph contained in the wallet was similar in appearance to the assailant. He was. In fact, these same witnesses would later confirm Oswald was the murderer. Thus, the DPD could have quickly confirmed that the wallet owner was their suspect. As a result, the person whose identity was contained in that wallet would obviously be considered armed and dangerous and the DPD would have immediately radioed that information to their fellow police officers for their own protection and possible apprehension of the suspect. We know they didn't. So that lends itself to the conclusion that this was not Oswald's wallet.
Now have you figured why, if the DPD had discovered Oswald's wallet at the Tippit scene, they not only didn't broadcast his name as a suspect but never later confirmed it was found there? In fact, they indicated it was found on his person when arrested. Even though finding Oswald's wallet at the crime would have been great evidence to link him to that crime. That seems a bit hard to square with all the conspiracy theories that otherwise have the DPD framing Oswald for this crime. But in this instance, for some inexplicable reason, the DPD not only doesn't frame him but actually suppress fantastic evidence of his guilt in the Tippit murder! Wow. And this is the same guy who you and others repeatedly suggest the DPD planted evidence against to frame him but here they are suddenly cautious about publicizing his identity? Ridiculous.
-
Yes, it is pretty obvious. There is a vast difference between someone who is merely a possible person of interest and a suspect. The circumstances dictate that distinction. Not being accounted for at his place of work made Oswald a person of interest. It was suspicious but didn't necessarily provide a direct link to the crime. The DPD noted it and intended to follow up. Which they did.
And yet somehow looking funny to a shoe salesman definitely qualifies as a "direct link to the crime".
-
And yet somehow looking funny to a shoe salesman definitely qualifies as a "direct link to the crime".
Iacoletti,
Whether or not the shoe store manager realized it, KGB agents and their handlers liked meeting with each other in a darkened theater.
Take Edward Ellis Smith and the KGB officers the FBI came to call "The Three Musketeers" in Washington, D.C. in 1957, for example. (See page 66)
https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames/mode/2up
Regardless, what he obviously DID realize is that when a 20-something man nervously ducks into his store's alcove to avoid the passing police shortly after the shooting of a policeman, and then sneaks into the nextdoor theater on that workday afternoon, that that guy just might be the "person of interest" that those policemen are looking for.
-- MWT ;)
Pat Speer at The Education Forum asked about a year ago:
I've been getting side-tracked with a lot of nonsense lately, so I'm hoping someone will know the answer to this and save me some time.
Brewer said he knew a policeman had been shot when he observed Oswald outside his store. This was roughly 15 minutes after the shooting. Well, did someone report the Tippit shooting on the radio within 15 minutes of the shooting? That seems mighty quick, considering there were no police or reporters on the scene, and they would need to be on the scene before a radio station would even think about reporting such a story, right?
Anyone know?
.
David Von Pein replied:
I've often wondered which one of the several Dallas/Fort Worth radio stations Johnny Brewer was listening to when he was standing behind the counter of his Hardy's Shoe Store on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. He doesn't provide that information in his Warren Commission testimony, nor does he provide such info in his December 6, 1963, affidavit or during his brief time on the witness stand during the 1986 mock Oswald trial in London. Such information is also not available in Dale Myers' exhaustive book on J.D. Tippit's murder, "With Malice". [EDIT -- I was in error re: Myers' book; Click Here.]
Perhaps in some later interview Brewer mentioned which radio station he was listening to on November 22nd, but I've never been able to pin it down. That particular detail is also not to be found in Brewer's February 27, 1964, FBI interview.
In any event, it's quite clear that at least one of the radio stations in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area had provided, prior to approximately 1:36 PM (Dallas time), a bulletin concerning the shooting of a police officer in Oak Cliff. We know that whatever radio station Johnny Calvin Brewer was listening to on 11/22/63 most definitely did broadcast such a bulletin (most likely somewhere between 1:30 PM and 1:35 PM).
I agree with Pat Speer that the timing of that initial bulletin concerning the Tippit shooting does seem very fast, given the fact that Officer Tippit wasn't even shot until about 1:14 or 1:15 PM, but the alternative would be to believe that Brewer just made up the part about hearing a radio report about the shooting of a policeman before Brewer ever laid eyes on Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22.
Or, I suppose another alternative would be to believe that Brewer merely conflated the various timelines in his mind when he later told his story about what happened that day. That is to say, via this alternative, Brewer really only heard the information about the shooting of a police officer much later in the day, but his memory got all fuzzy and when he later told people what he remembered, he incorrectly said that the radio report concerning the policeman was something he had heard prior to Oswald poking his head into the lobby of Brewer's shoe store.
Analyzing The Radio Coverage....
If, in fact, Johnny Brewer definitely did hear a radio report about a policeman being shot prior to the time when Brewer saw Lee Oswald lurking in the doorway of the shoe store, I can say with some certainty that one of the stations that Brewer was definitely not listening to on 11/22/63 was KLIF Radio in Dallas....and that's because a timestamp provided by the KLIF announcers during their coverage at 1:48 PM CST indicates that the first KLIF bulletin concerning the shooting of a policeman in Oak Cliff didn't occur for another 14 minutes after that "1:48" timestamp, which would mean that KLIF's first bulletin on the Tippit shooting came at 2:02 PM CST (give or take a couple of minutes). And, of course, by 2:02 PM, Lee Oswald was already in police custody and, in fact, had just entered Dallas Police Headquarters in City Hall a couple of minutes earlier. (The initial bulletin about the Tippit murder comes at 2:25:45 in the video below.)
https://drive.google.com/file/KLIF-Radio (Dallas) (11/22/63) [dead]
Another local station that can be eliminated as being the one John Brewer was tuned-in to on 11/22 is Fort Worth's WBAP Radio, which didn't broadcast anything about the shooting incident in Oak Cliff until approximately 1:58 PM CST (go to 4:00:15 in the video below).
https://drive.google.com/file/WBAP-Radio (Fort Worth) (11/22/63) [dead]
KRLD Radio (Dallas) can also be eliminated as the source for Brewer's information about the Oak Cliff shooting. By my calculations, the first details heard on KRLD about the shooting of a policeman occurred at 2:04 PM Dallas time (at 1:23:31 in the video below).
https://drive.google.com/file/KRLD-Radio (Dallas) (11/22/63) [dead]
KBOX Radio might have been the station that Johnny Brewer had turned on that day, because within the first minute of the KBOX coverage heard below (which equates to about 1:35 PM CST), there's a bulletin which states: "We also have one Dallas detective reported dead on arrival at Parkland Hospital." (If that report was referring to Officer Tippit, then there are two errors in it, because Tippit was taken to Methodist Hospital, not Parkland, and Tippit, of course, was not a "detective". But later radio reports did also make the mistake of calling the slain policeman "Detective Tippit". So that KBOX bulletin probably is referring to Officer Tippit's death. And if that's the case, then Johnny Brewer could have heard about the Tippit shooting prior to seeing Oswald come into the lobby area of his shoe store. And it's also possible that KBOX could have provided a bulletin about the policeman's shooting even earlier than 1:35, but I have no way to confirm whether they did or not, because the version of the KBOX material in my collection begins at about 1:35 PM.)
https://drive.google.com/file/KBOX-Radio (Dallas) (11/22/63) [dead]
Another station that's still in the running for a possible pre-1:35 PM bulletin about the Tippit shooting is Dallas' WFAA Radio. I can't confirm one way or the other whether WFAA broadcast any Tippit bulletins prior to about 1:45 PM, because that's when my copy of their coverage begins. But WFAA was very quick with their first bulletin concerning Oswald's arrest in the Texas Theater, which is a bulletin that occurred within a very few minutes of Oswald's capture (at the 4:20 mark in this WFAA Radio coverage).
For the record, the only other Dallas/Fort Worth radio station that I currently have in my assassination archive is a little bit of coverage from KXOL in Fort Worth, but it has been heavily edited and cannot be used for any kind of a reliable timeline of events.
-
So I read some statements and interviews, and I noticed the cops who arrested Oswald said they took his wallet to verify his identity at the theater. That's an interesting fact, considering Oswald's wallet was also found at officer J.D. Tippet's murder scene.
So could his wallet be in 2 places at the same exact time? Or did he have 2 of the same exact wallets? Is it possible the Dallas police were working to help frame Oswald?
I also noticed something odd in Oswald's murder video. If you listen, you'll hear a car horn right as Oswald is brought out. Then again, while someone shouts "There he is!" And then Ruby steps right in to pop him. The only people in cars down there were cops. Did they set his murder up too?
Could that be how Ruby got into the police garage? Maybe someone should have been questioning the DPD.
Could the "wallet" that was "found" or ... gasp ... "planted" at the scene of the Tippit murder have come from the (drunk?) driver who, about 12 hours earlier, had plowed over a stop sign about 50 yards away?
-- MWT ;)
-
Yes, it is pretty obvious. There is a vast difference between someone who is merely a possible person of interest and a suspect. The circumstances dictate that distinction. Not being accounted for at his place of work made Oswald a person of interest. It was suspicious but didn't necessarily provide a direct link to the crime. The DPD noted it and intended to follow up. Which they did.
You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize, however, that finding an unaccounted for wallet at the scene of a murdered police officer that has just been committed minutes beforehand on a public street makes the individual identified in the wallet a suspect. The circumstances point to a connection between the wallet and the crime. The DPD could also quickly check with witnesses at that location to determine whether the person in any photograph contained in the wallet was similar in appearance to the assailant. He was. In fact, these same witnesses would later confirm Oswald was the murderer. Thus, the DPD could have quickly confirmed that the wallet owner was their suspect. As a result, the person whose identity was contained in that wallet would obviously be considered armed and dangerous and the DPD would have immediately radioed that information to their fellow police officers for their own protection and possible apprehension of the suspect. We know they didn't. So that lends itself to the conclusion that this was not Oswald's wallet.
You needed 14 days to reply and this is what you came up with? :D
Yes, it is pretty obvious. There is a vast difference between someone who is merely a possible person of interest and a suspect. The circumstances dictate that distinction. Not being accounted for at his place of work made Oswald a person of interest. It was suspicious but didn't necessarily provide a direct link to the crime. The DPD noted it and intended to follow up. Which they did.
Complete and utter self serving BS. For starters, they did give out a description of the man wanted in the Kennedy murder, which means they were looking for a suspect and not just "a person of interest", unless you want to argue that the man of the description and Oswald were not the same person.
More importantly, in both cases the individual was being sought in connection with a murder, either as a witness or a suspect. Both are deemed to be persons of interest. It is not up to a police officer on patrol or a dispatcher to determine who is a suspect and who isn't. But regardless, names of people involved in police business were never transmitted on the air. You need to consult somebody who knows rather than make up crap like this.
You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize, however, that finding an unaccounted for wallet at the scene of a murdered police officer that has just been committed minutes beforehand on a public street makes the individual identified in the wallet a suspect.
True, you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes... but you do need to be a complete moron! That wallet could have belonged to somebody who just happened to lose it there in the commotion of the moment. I am not saying it was, but at the time they found it, they had no way of knowing if it was related to the crime or not.
The circumstances point to a connection between the wallet and the crime.
What circumstances? Be precise... don't give me the "a policeman got shot and they found a wallet nearby" crap because that doesn't cut it.
The DPD could also quickly check with witnesses at that location to determine whether the person in any photograph contained in the wallet was similar in appearance to the assailant. He was. In fact, these same witnesses would later confirm Oswald was the murderer. Thus, the DPD could have quickly confirmed that the wallet owner was their suspect.
Now you are just making stuff up. "Could have checked and could have confirmed"... Whether they could or not, they never did, so your entire argument is BS.
But if you insist that they did check and confirm, please provide the details and be precise.... Where is the report? Who asked who?
As a result, the person whose identity was contained in that wallet would obviously be considered armed and dangerous and the DPD would have immediately radioed that information to their fellow police officers for their own protection and possible apprehension of the suspect. We know they didn't. So that lends itself to the conclusion that this was not Oswald's wallet.
Why would a the owner of a wallet, that may or may not be connected to a crime, "obviously" be considered armed and dangerous? You are making selfserving assumptions again.
None of what you have said makes any sense or is ever remotely connected to reality.
Now have you figured why, if the DPD had discovered Oswald's wallet at the Tippit scene, they not only didn't broadcast his name as a suspect but never later confirmed it was found there? In fact, they indicated it was found on his person when arrested. Even though finding Oswald's wallet at the crime would have been great evidence to link him to that crime. That seems a bit hard to square with all the conspiracy theories that otherwise have the DPD framing Oswald for this crime. But in this instance, for some inexplicable reason, the DPD not only doesn't frame him but actually suppress fantastic evidence of his guilt in the Tippit murder! Wow. And this is the same guy who you and others repeatedly suggest the DPD planted evidence against to frame him but here they are suddenly cautious about publicizing his identity? Ridiculous.
Now have you figured why, if the DPD had discovered Oswald's wallet at the Tippit scene, they not only didn't broadcast his name as a suspect
Already told you, they never broadcasts names.
but never later confirmed it was found there? In fact, they indicated it was found on his person when arrested. Even though finding Oswald's wallet at the crime would have been great evidence to link him to that crime.
And how exactly do you know that the wallet now in evidence (the one with the two ID's) isn't the one found at 10th/Patton?
Paul Bentley (who was never called to give even a statement or testify before the WC) said in a TV interview that he took a wallet from Oswald in the car which contained a driver's license and a credit card. Not a word about the Hidell ID. In fact there is no report whatsoever about this wallet and it's content. Kinda strange, don't you think... A DPD officer finds a wallet which contains a fake Hidell ID, which in turn directly links to the MC rifle, and he says nothing about it. Files no report...nothing. The first time we hear about it is months later when the WC was taking testimony.
Gus Rose had just started work when they already had Oswald at the station. He said some officer gave him a wallet which did contain a Hidell ID. Not a word where it came from. Rose doesn't even know the officer who gave him the wallet. Again, not a word; like "this is the guy's wallet and there's a fake ID in it". Nothing of that kind... There is no reason to believe that this could not be the wallet found at from 10th/Patton.
So, why didn't they say they found the wallet at 10th/Patton? That's easy; the officers who were in the car with Oswald had already told people they had taken the wallet from Oswald in the car. Claiming there was a second wallet, found at 10th/Patton, would only complicate matters. After Oswald died it was far easier to just switch wallets and make the one from the car disappear.
That seems a bit hard to square with all the conspiracy theories that otherwise have the DPD framing Oswald for this crime.
Actually, it works fine for a framing theory.
And this is the same guy who you and others repeatedly suggest the DPD planted evidence against to frame him
I have never suggested that the DPD planted evidence against anybody. That they manipulated evidence is beyond doubt, but that's not the same as planting evidence.