JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on April 24, 2025, 04:56:27 AM
-
Oswald's wallet, along with both Westbrook and Barrett, were inside Westbrook's office once Oswald was brought in. Let me say that again... All three (Oswald's wallet, Westbrook & Barrett) were inside Westbrook's office after Oswald was brought in. I believe Barrett is being honest when he says Westbrook asked him about Oswald/Hidell identifications inside a wallet. I just think Barrett is misremembering where it was that the brief conversation took place, i.e. inside Westbrook's office versus at Tenth & Patton. All of this is covered in "With Malice" by Dale Myers.
-
Oswald's wallet, along with both Westbrook and Barrett, were inside Westbrook's office once Oswald was brought in. Let me say that again... All three (Oswald's wallet, Westbrook & Barrett) were inside Westbrook's office after Oswald was brought in. I believe Barrett is being honest when he says Westbrook asked him about Oswald/Hidell identifications inside a wallet. I just think Barrett is misremembering where it was that the brief conversation took place, i.e. inside Westbrook's office versus at Tenth & Patton. All of this is covered in "With Malice" by Dale Myers.
The whole Oswald Wallet at the Tippit crime scene is completely illogical, on one hand from the CT perspective, the Dallas Police wanted to shaft Oswald by manufacturing evidence, planting evidence, lying about the evidence and eventually letting Oswald be killed, but for some reason the Dallas Police suppressed some of the strongest evidence in the Tippit murder by hiding it? WHY?
Anyway, Weidmann just recently said this about debating Bill Brown about the Tippit murder, "there is no point to have a debate when you make up "facts" as you go along as well as ignore evidence that proves you wrong" so I wonder if Weidmann will contradict himself and enter this debate and give us his two cents about why Bill is wrong, and if he does then there is no reason for Weidmann to keep running from a real debate with Bill! Let's just wait and see?
JohnM
-
TWO WALLETS? - YUP. Thumb1:
https://jfk.boards.net/post/4556/thread
-
TWO WALLETS? - YUP. Thumb1:
https://jfk.boards.net/post/4556/thread
Thanks Michael, so Oswald's wallet was at the scene of Tippit's murder, nice, that's more proof that Oswald was there! Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
-
TWO WALLETS? - YUP. Thumb1:
https://jfk.boards.net/post/4556/thread
Don't believe your lying eyes they say...
-
FWIW, Greg Doudna, who is at least a serious scholar and not a complete JFKA loon, has a scenario where the wallet at the Tippit scene was Callaway's: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26874-the-wallet-at-the-tippit-scene-a-simpler-solution/.
In the second post on that thread, Bill Simpich absolutely reams Barrett as "the worst sort of l-i-a-r."
I didn't review the entire long thread - Bill Brown is there as well - but my guess would be that every theory about the wallet is in there somewhere.
And on it goes, and always will.
-
Addendum: At the same thread, Donald Willis argues the wallet at the scene belonged to Scroggins:
"DPD Sgt. Kenneth Croy: 'There was a report that a cab driver had picked up Tippit's gun and had left, presumably. They don't know whether he was the one that had shot Tippit...' (v12p202). Certainly, if Scoggins was, at first, wrongly suspected of being the shooter, the police would have wanted to see his wallet."
And on it goes, and always will.
-
Now I'm really into the wallet thing:
Here is Myers' fairly venomous piece on the Rookstool/Barrett video, in which he also links to his other pieces on the wallet: https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2014/03/solving-tippit-murders-wallet-mystery.html.
All I know is, if I ever create a sock puppet, he's going to be named Ferris Rookstool III!
-
FWIW, Greg Doudna, who is at least a serious scholar and not a complete JFKA loon, has a scenario where the wallet at the Tippit scene was Callaway's: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26874-the-wallet-at-the-tippit-scene-a-simpler-solution/.
In the second post on that thread, Bill Simpich absolutely reams Barrett as "the worst sort of l-i-a-r."
I didn't review the entire long thread - Bill Brown is there as well - but my guess would be that every theory about the wallet is in there somewhere.
And on it goes, and always will.
In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, it appears the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun and without a care even has it aimed close to the hand of the detective who is pointing something out within the wallet and then when the cop hands over the wallet, he quickly points the gun away and more towards himself.
The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera and thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back, the cop responds correctly by diverting the aim of the gun and away from the direction of this civilian.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxPsgRHQ/Giving-wallet-back.gif)
BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.
JohnM
-
In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, it appears the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun and without a care even has it aimed close to the hand of the detective who is pointing something out within the wallet and then when the cop hands over the wallet, he quickly points the gun away and more towards himself.
The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera and thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back, the cop responds correctly by diverting the aim of the gun and away from the direction of this civilian.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxPsgRHQ/Giving-wallet-back.gif)
BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.
JohnM
:D
-
Below is a screen shot from a news report aired on WFAA-TV Dallas on the 50th anniversary.
It contains the only documented affirmation that a wallet was found at the Tippit scene.
The wallet is described as "Oswald's", was "recovered" by the officer first to arrive on the scene.
This documented framed evidence was given by the officers to FBI Agent Bob Barrett when he retired.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4290/35523265361_492cc8b5eb_c.jpg)
"First on the scene recovered Oswald's wallet there too."
" K H Croy Sgt. Kenneth Croy DPD Reservve #86"(?)
"SA XXXXXXX Bookhout Dallas FBI"
-
Last one:
Since I will be writing a law review article on the wallet, I would like any debate on this to start at the 30,000-foot level:
1. With multiple eyewitnesses, the police would have planted an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene because ____________________.
2. The police would have had an Oswald wallet prepared in advance, for use at the Tippit scene within minutes of the murder, because _________________________.
3. The police would have planted Alek Hidell identification in the prepared wallet because ____________________________.
4. Despite items 1-3, the police failed to assemble a clean series of reports about the wallet being found at the scene because ________________________.
5. If the police did not actually plant an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene but merely said they found one there, they did this because _______________________ and the answer to item 4 is that _________________________.
Probably there are excellent CT-oriented answers to such questions, which Martin will supply and expose me, Ferris Rookstool IV, as a hopeless dolt who probably drops his wallet in the parking lot every time he goes to Walmart.
-
Last one:
Since I will be writing a law review article on the wallet, I would like any debate on this to start at the 30,000-foot level:
1. With multiple eyewitnesses, the police would have planted an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene because ____________________.
2. The police would have had an Oswald wallet prepared in advance, for use at the Tippit scene within minutes of the murder, because _________________________.
3. The police would have planted Alek Hidell identification in the prepared wallet because ____________________________.
4. Despite items 1-3, the police failed to assemble a clean series of reports about the wallet being found at the scene because ________________________.
5. If the police did not actually plant an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene but merely said they found one there, they did this because _______________________ and the answer to item 4 is that _________________________.
Probably there are excellent CT-oriented answers to such questions, which Martin will supply and expose me, Ferris Rookstool IV, as a hopeless dolt who probably drops his wallet in the parking lot every time he goes to Walmart.
Useless garbage
-
Useless garbage
It is, isn't it? Are we to interpret your response as "Thinking logically is beneath me" or "I have no answers"?
Please, feel free to ignore my garbage. Just take us through (1) how your scenario, whatever it is, actually would have worked and (2) how it would have made any sense in the context of the Tippit murder and the JFKA as a whole. These should be basic concerns before we start agonizing over the buttons and flaps on the wallets, no? If you can't take us through (1) and (2), I'm going to start having concerns about this whole CT thing maybe just being, well, kind of ad hoc goofiness.
Oh, Ferris Rookstool III was a hoot. He was one of three claimants to having possession of the sniper's window and indeed some 40 or 50 TSBD windows!
"Now a third Kennedy-era collector has come forward to claim possession.
Ferris Rookstool, a former FBI employee who lives in Dallas, says he hired a crew to salvage all the windows a few years ago, after he learned that Dallas County was planning to replace the panes.
He said he has the 40 to 50 windows stored in a warehouse but doesn’t know which one is the window."
-
Below is a screen shot from a news report aired on WFAA-TV Dallas on the 50th anniversary.
It contains the only documented affirmation that a wallet was found at the Tippit scene.
The wallet is described as "Oswald's", was "recovered" by the officer first to arrive on the scene.
This documented framed evidence was given by the officers to FBI Agent Bob Barrett when he retired.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4290/35523265361_492cc8b5eb_c.jpg)
"First on the scene recovered Oswald's wallet there too."
" K H Croy Sgt. Kenneth Croy DPD Reservve #86"(?)
"SA XXXXXXX Bookhout Dallas FBI"
Thanks again Michael, Oswald's wallet the Tippit murder scene can only mean Oswald dropped it as he was proving his identity to Tippit, therefore Oswald was there and this is just another piece of the mountain of evidence linking Oswald to this crime!! Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Thanks again Michael, Oswald's wallet the Tippit murder scene can only mean Oswald dropped it as he was proving his identity to Tippit, therefore Oswald was there and this is just another piece of the mountain of evidence linking Oswald to this crime!! Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
I believe what he did is called "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel."
On the other hand, he does get any Oswald conviction overturned. Which is really what they are trying to do anyway. It's Oswald as Alfred Dreyfus sort of thinking.
-
Useless garbage
A typical CT knee jerk response which proves that you either didn't read the questions or can't think of an intelligent response that provides a logical alternate narrative, so you just put these questions in the too hard basket, which in your case is beyond overflowing.
Are you really satisfied by answering with brainless one liners and irrelevant emojis?
What are you trying to prove?
JohnM
-
Oswald's wallet, along with both Westbrook and Barrett, were inside Westbrook's office once Oswald was brought in. Let me say that again... All three (Oswald's wallet, Westbrook & Barrett) were inside Westbrook's office after Oswald was brought in. I believe Barrett is being honest when he says Westbrook asked him about Oswald/Hidell identifications inside a wallet. I just think Barrett is misremembering where it was that the brief conversation took place, i.e. inside Westbrook's office versus at Tenth & Patton. All of this is covered in "With Malice" by Dale Myers.
Bentley took a wallet from Oswald in the car which took them from the Texas Theater to the police station. None of the officers in the car have mentioned, in their contemporary reports, that a Hidell ID was found in that wallet.
Gus Rose, who had just arrived at the police station after Oswald had been brought in, was the first officer to talk to him. Just before that some unidentified officer gave Rose a wallet and told him it was Oswald's.
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
That wallet did contain the Hidell ID.
At 3.25 PM traffic officer Bardin submitted a black wallet with some other items to the evidence room.
How did Westbrook and Barrett obtain "Oswald's wallet" at the police station and how did it end up in the possession of officer Bardin?
And what was Westbrook looking at on 10th street? There was speculation about it being Tippit's wallet but that has long been debunked.
-
If the someone had planted a wallet at the scene to frame Oswald, why didn't they reveal that such a wallet was found? That would have been a fantastic piece of evidence linking Oswald to the crime. What would the police have done if they found a discarded wallet at the scene? They would have immediately radioed in the name of the person who owned the wallet as a potential suspect. Instead we are supposed to believe the DPD suppressed finding Oswald's wallet at the scene? The guy everyone is trying to blame for the crime. Makes no sense. It may be Tippit's citation book. A logical thing to do is look at Tippit's citation book to see if he wrote down any information that might have been useful in finding the suspect like a name or license plate of the last person he encountered.
-
If the someone had planted a wallet at the scene to frame Oswald, why didn't they reveal that such a wallet was found? That would have been a fantastic piece of evidence linking Oswald to the crime.
Because, if we're to believe the official story, Oswald carried his wallet on him when he was arrested.
So either Oswald was carrying two wallets that day, or a very incriminating wallet with the Hidell ID was planted at the Tippit murder scene (if the accounts of Oswald's wallet being found near the Tippit scene are accurate).
-
So after shooting JFK and then shooting Tippit , Oswald continues carrying his fake ID in his billfold all the way to the theater?
The stupidity of Oswald is incredible.
1. Orders a an MC rifle by mail with fake ID but has the rifle sent to his own real name P.O.box
2. Has his wife take pictures of him holding an MC rifle and a revolver in his holster, and some Marxist magazines.
3. Cannot figure out any other way to get his rifle into the TSBD except by getting a ride with BW. Frazier on morning of Nov/22/63.
4. Disassembles a 40” rifle just to reduce length a mere 5” and puts the parts in a paper bag made from TSBD paper and TSBD tape.
5. Leaves the bag with his palm print on it right there at the SN.
6. Cannot figure out how to use an elevator and escape with his rifle, so he decides to leave the rifle by boxes nearest the staircase and then run down 4 flights of stairs.
7. After a lucky break by not getting arrested by Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom, Oswald instead of just going down 1 more staircase, and then exiting by unguarded west side door, decides to take off his brown shirt , get a coke, and go wander slowly into the 2nd floor office.
8. As Oswald , ( wearing just the Tshirt) enters the rear door to the office, Mrs Reid entered the office front door and saw Oswald. Oswald for some reason just kept walking slowly towards Reid across 90 ft of office floor. Isn’t Oswald supposed to be in a hurry to get out of the TSBD?
9. After mumbling to Reid , Oswald goes back to the lunchroom, puts back on his brown shirt. He’s got to get his blue jacket too, before he leaves so he that will be wearing it when Oswald is seen by taxi driver Whaley. This is an incredible waste of time by a guy supposed to be in a hurry to get out of TSBD.
10. Oswald now having put back on his brown shirt and has his blue jacket too, exits the lunchroom again , but decides rather than go out the west rear door, and get out of TSBD, that the better action to do, is to trek across the 1st floor to linger in the front lobby. There he meets reporters , Allman and McNeil. More wasted time.
11. Oswald realizes finally he has wasted enough time and upon seeing that DPD Officer Barnett had locked the front door , Oswald reckons it’s time to leave the TSBD now by exiting via the unguarded west rear door , something Oswald could have done 2 minutes earlier after meeting Baker.
12.,Oswald is supposed to be in hurry to get back to his boarding room. He elects to walk 7 blocks to board a bus that obviously was oriented to go BACK to the TSBD. Is Oswald stupid or what?
13. Oswald makes a spectacle of himself banging on the bus door. He sits in the bus for several minutes before it dawns on him that this bus isn’t moving very fast AND, it’s going BACK to the TSBD. So Oswald’s squirrel brain reckons it’s time he got off this bus asap. BUT WAIT… get a bus transfer from the bus driver… geez us … is this guy Oswald stupid or what?
14. NOW FINALLY… Oswald has a eureka moment: Hey.. I can get a taxi and get home asap. For some reason, Oswald did not think of using a taxi 8 minutes earlier when he had just exited the TSBD (supposedly in a hurry to get home asap.)
15. After changing his blue jacket for a light gray jacket, Oswald decides since he just shot JFK that the best thing to do now is to carry a revolver that is linked to his P.O. Box too just like his MC rifle was, and Oswald reasons that he should carry also the fake ID in his billfold too. Somehow Oswald’s blue jacket made its way back to the TSBD about 1 month later after he took it off at his boarding room.
16. Now Oswald decides that he is in the clear, so let’s just start walking /running or changing directions suddenly should he see any police car going by. After all, that’s the best way to not draw attention to yourself right? Apparently Oswald’s squirrel brain reasons that is what he should do, especially since he is carrying a revolver linked to a fake ID which is in his wallet, which ID was used to order the MC rifle also, and which rifle Oswald left on the 6th floor of the TSBD with a serial no that could be easily tracked to the fake name leading to his own real name P.O.box. Is Oswald in on drugs? because the level of stupidity is beyond normal stupid.
17. So the police officer DID notice something that made him follow Oswald walking along in some way that Tippit thought was a little odd. According to 2 witness, Oswald was seen actually walking TOWARDS Tippit. Yes, Oswald’s squirrel brain, now being affected by drugs , hypnosis or psychotic disconnect with reality, reasoned that the best thing to do was to approach Tippits car , have a few words, then shooTippi with 4 shots with the revolver linked to The fake ID in Oswald’s wallet. To make sure that nearby witnesses saw him, Oswald lingered after shooting Tippit in the head , threw his shells out one by one at the scene and walked menacingly towards Markam so she could get a good look at his face.
Okay now it’s beyond stupidity. Oswald has crossed over into an alternate reality. into the realm of psychotic lunacy.
So after this event, Oswald keeping the billfold with fake ID on his person and keeping the revolver on his person going to the theatre , then pulling out the revolver when police arrive, struggling with the police all the way outside of the theater and Oswald proclaiming was not resisting arrest… IS exactly the conclusion one would expect of psychotic lunatic.
I’ve sort of run out of CT alternatives, but there may be one possibility that Oswald was the victim of MK ultra and was hypnotized and or psychologically managed in some way.
The other possibility is a conspirator who was able to order the MC rifle and revolver, setup Oswald, somehow got Oswald to be photographed with rifle and revolver, then the conspirator preplanted the MC rifle, shot JFK with a semi auto rifle which the conspirator took with him as he escaped using the west rear elevator as Babel and Truly were ascending the staircases.
Sooner or later , though, if I’ve exhausted all CT scenarios that I can imagine, then I’ll just probably become an LN and be done with it after 25 years of being lead down rabbit holes.
-
So after shooting JFK and then shooting Tippit , Oswald continues carrying his fake ID in his billfold all the way to the theater?
The stupidity of Oswald is incredible.
1. Orders a an MC rifle by mail with fake ID but has the rifle sent to his own real name P.O.box
2. Has his wife take pictures of him holding an MC rifle and a revolver in his holster, and some Marxist magazines.
3. Cannot figure out any other way to get his rifle into the TSBD except by getting a ride with BW. Frazier on morning of Nov/22/63.
4. Disassembles a 40” rifle just to reduce length a mere 5” and puts the parts in a paper bag made from TSBD paper and TSBD tape.
5. Leaves the bag with his palm print on it right there at the SN.
6. Cannot figure out how to use an elevator and escape with his rifle, so he decides to leave the rifle by boxes nearest the staircase and then run down 4 flights of stairs.
7. After a lucky break by not getting arrested by Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom, Oswald instead of just going down 1 more staircase, and then exiting by unguarded west side door, decides to take off his brown shirt , get a coke, and go wander slowly into the 2nd floor office.
8. As Oswald , ( wearing just the Tshirt) enters the rear door to the office, Mrs Reid entered the office front door and saw Oswald. Oswald for some reason just kept walking slowly towards Reid across 90 ft of office floor. Isn’t Oswald supposed to be in a hurry to get out of the TSBD?
9. After mumbling to Reid , Oswald goes back to the lunchroom, puts back on his brown shirt. He’s got to get his blue jacket too, before he leaves so he that will be wearing it when Oswald is seen by taxi driver Whaley. This is an incredible waste of time by a guy supposed to be in a hurry to get out of TSBD.
10. Oswald now having put back on his brown shirt and has his blue jacket too, exits the lunchroom again , but decides rather than go out the west rear door, and get out of TSBD, that the better action to do, is to trek across the 1st floor to linger in the front lobby. There he meets reporters , Allman and McNeil. More wasted time.
11. Oswald realizes finally he has wasted enough time and upon seeing that DPD Officer Barnett had locked the front door , Oswald reckons it’s time to leave the TSBD now by exiting via the unguarded west rear door , something Oswald could have done 2 minutes earlier after meeting Baker.
12.,Oswald is supposed to be in hurry to get back to his boarding room. He elects to walk 7 blocks to board a bus that obviously was oriented to go BACK to the TSBD. Is Oswald stupid or what?
13. Oswald makes a spectacle of himself banging on the bus door. He sits in the bus for several minutes before it dawns on him that this bus isn’t moving very fast AND, it’s going BACK to the TSBD. So Oswald’s squirrel brain reckons it’s time he got off this bus asap. BUT WAIT… get a bus transfer from the bus driver… geez us … is this guy Oswald stupid or what?
14. NOW FINALLY… Oswald has a eureka moment: Hey.. I can get a taxi and get home asap. For some reason, Oswald did not think of using a taxi 8 minutes earlier when he had just exited the TSBD (supposedly in a hurry to get home asap.)
15. After changing his blue jacket for a light gray jacket, Oswald decides since he just shot JFK that the best thing to do now is to carry a revolver that is linked to his P.O. Box too just like his MC rifle was, and Oswald reasons that he should carry also the fake ID in his billfold too. Somehow Oswald’s blue jacket made its way back to the TSBD about 1 month later after he took it off at his boarding room.
16. Now Oswald decides that he is in the clear, so let’s just start walking /running or changing directions suddenly should he see any police car going by. After all, that’s the best way to not draw attention to yourself right? Apparently Oswald’s squirrel brain reasons that is what he should do, especially since he is carrying a revolver linked to a fake ID which is in his wallet, which ID was used to order the MC rifle also, and which rifle Oswald left on the 6th floor of the TSBD with a serial no that could be easily tracked to the fake name leading to his own real name P.O.box. Is Oswald in on drugs? because the level of stupidity is beyond normal stupid.
17. So the police officer DID notice something that made him follow Oswald walking along in some way that Tippit thought was a little odd. According to 2 witness, Oswald was seen actually walking TOWARDS Tippit. Yes, Oswald’s squirrel brain, now being affected by drugs , hypnosis or psychotic disconnect with reality, reasoned that the best thing to do was to approach Tippits car , have a few words, then shooTippi with 4 shots with the revolver linked to The fake ID in Oswald’s wallet. To make sure that nearby witnesses saw him, Oswald lingered after shooting Tippit in the head , threw his shells out one by one at the scene and walked menacingly towards Markam so she could get a good look at his face.
Okay now it’s beyond stupidity. Oswald has crossed over into an alternate reality. into the realm of psychotic lunacy.
So after this event, Oswald keeping the billfold with fake ID on his person and keeping the revolver on his person going to the theatre , then pulling out the revolver when police arrive, struggling with the police all the way outside of the theater and Oswald proclaiming was not resisting arrest… IS exactly the conclusion one would expect of psychotic lunatic.
I’ve sort of run out of CT alternatives, but there may be one possibility that Oswald was the victim of MK ultra and was hypnotized and or psychologically managed in some way.
The other possibility is a conspirator who was able to order the MC rifle and revolver, setup Oswald, somehow got Oswald to be photographed with rifle and revolver, then the conspirator preplanted the MC rifle, shot JFK with a semi auto rifle which the conspirator took with him as he escaped using the west rear elevator as Babel and Truly were ascending the staircases.
Sooner or later , though, if I’ve exhausted all CT scenarios that I can imagine, then I’ll just probably become an LN and be done with it after 25 years of being lead down rabbit holes.
I don't accept all of your posited scenario, but it seems to me that the basic scenario falls into place if the JFKA was not in Oswald's contemplation until almost immediately before it occurred, was not finalized until he was rebuffed by Marina and was undertaken as pretty much of a suicide mission to establish his place in history as a true Marxist. As I've said before, the combination of his employment at the TSBD and the route of the motorcade must have seemed like Fate calling to him at last. My guess is that he was astonished when he found himself alone on the 6th floor and able to calmly exit the TSBD and that he had no plan at all once he was outside. Perhaps after he encountered Baker and Truly he contemplated remaining in the TSBD and blending in for a bit but then realized he could walk right out. By that point, the realization that he had just blown out the brains of the POTUS and somehow survived would have left his mind reeling. From that point forward, it all strikes me as flying by the seat of his pants. His actions might have looked more rational if he hadn't encountered Tippit; perhaps he would have headed for Mexico and tried again for entry to Cuba. Once Tippit was shot, now his mind was really reeling and he was really flying by the seat of his pants. Once he was in custody in the TT, it really was "all over now" and I believe he went into some state of acceptance where he realized nothing could be gained by cooperating and he might avoid conviction or at least cement his place in history with a trial in which he would expound his philosophy.
Not a perfect explanation, I realize, but there is no perfect explanation and something like this makes the most sense to me.
-
Because, if we're to believe the official story, Oswald carried his wallet on him when he was arrested.
So either Oswald was carrying two wallets that day, or a very incriminating wallet with the Hidell ID was planted at the Tippit murder scene (if the accounts of Oswald's wallet being found near the Tippit scene are accurate).
That makes no sense. If the DPD is going to suppress finding a wallet, which one is it going to be? The one found in his pocket when arrested or the one left at the scene of the murder of a cop? Obviously, they would claim to have found the more highly incriminating wallet at the crime scene and put anything necessary in that wallet. If they had planted a wallet there, anyone with half a brain would have anticipated that Oswald would have had a second wallet on his possession when arrested. They wouldn't have been surprised by that. Again, what would the police had done if they found a discarded wallet at the Tippit murder scene? They would have immediately radioed in the identity of the owner of that wallet as a potential suspect. That didn't happen. It is not a wallet found at the crime scene. My best guess is Tippit's citation book or the wallet of a witness.
-
That makes no sense. If the DPD is going to suppress finding a wallet, which one is it going to be? The one found in his pocket when arrested or the one left at the scene of the murder of a cop? Obviously, they would claim to have found the more highly incriminating wallet at the crime scene and put anything necessary in that wallet. If they had planted a wallet there, anyone with half a brain would have anticipated that Oswald would have had a second wallet on his possession when arrested. They wouldn't have been surprised by that. Again, what would the police had done if they found a discarded wallet at the Tippit murder scene? They would have immediately radioed in the identity of the owner of that wallet as a potential suspect. That didn't happen. It is not a wallet found at the crime scene. My best guess is Tippit's citation book or the wallet of a witness.
What also doesn't make sense is that none of the reports from 11/22/63 mentioned the Hidell ID being in the contents of Oswald's wallet. As someone noted earlier on this topic, officer Bentley didn't mention the Hiddell ID when he went on TV that day and described the contents of Oswald's wallet. The whole thing is peculiar.
The film footage and photo from the Tippit crime scene indirectly corroborates the FBI agent's (Barrett?) claim about Oswald's wallet being found before he was arrested (assuming the wallet in the film footage wasn't Tippit's).
What explains the discrepancy? I don't know.
Here's an article from 2013 on the two wallets mystery:
Wallet mystery from Officer Tippit's murder settled after 50 years
DALLAS No other crimes have been more analyzed or scrutinized than what happened in Dallas a half-century ago.
'It's been picked apart for decades,' said Farris Rookstool III, JFK historian and former FBI analyst, 'but the tragedy of this is no one has ever taken the due diligence of time to really put these pieces together until now.'
After five decades, Rookstool is sharing the strongest evidence yet that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Dallas police Officer J.D. Tippit.
'The wallet puts him definitively at the scene of the crime,' Rookstool said.
Oswald's wallet has been a persistent mystery in recent years one Rookstool started studying. The mysterious billfold first appeared on WFAA in the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
WFAA program director Jay Watson, anchoring live coverage of the assassination, asked Channel 8 photographer Ron Reiland to join him on set and discuss film that Reiland just shot on the Oak Cliff street where Tippit was slain.
'Let's roll the film and we'll narrate it as we go,' Watson said on air.
Reiland, describing each scene to Watson, presumed the wallet seen on the film belonged to Officer Tippit.
'There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is Oswald's wallet,' Rookstool said.
So, Rookstool set out to prove it.
He compared the Channel 8 black-and-white film to Oswald's actual wallet in the National Archives. On each of them, circular snaps are visible, along with metal strips and perhaps the biggest similarity a zipper over the cash compartment.
Oswald's wallet is a different color and has different characteristics than Tippit's.
This month, for the first time, Marie Tippit shared her late husband's wallet with WFAA. Tippit's is black, has a different style snap no metal bar like Oswald's and does not have a zipper over the cash compartment.
A half hour east of Birmingham, Alabama is the only man alive today who saw Oswald's wallet at Tippit's murder scene.
'As I walked up, I happened to not knowingly step in a puddle of blood, which was Tippit's blood,' retired FBI Special Agent Bob Barrett recalled. 'I thought, 'Oh God, what have I done?''
He spent 27 years in the FBI and was asked to go to the Tippit murder scene that day by his friend, Dallas County Sheriff Bill Decker.
After arriving at 10th and Patton in North Oak Cliff, Barrett said, he recognized a Dallas police captain thumbing through a billfold.
'He said, 'Bob, you know all the crooks in town, all the hoodlums, etc. You ever heard of a Lee Harvey Oswald?' I said, 'No, I never have.' He said 'How about an Alec Hiddell?' I said, 'No. I never have heard of him either,'' Barrett explained. 'Why would they be asking me questions about Oswald and Hiddell if it wasn't in that wallet?'
In addition, the first Dallas cop on the Tippit crime scene said he actually recovered the wallet.
Sgt. Kenneth Croy, a reserve officer at the time, put it in writing on an 8' x 10' picture for Rookstool.
'First on the scene, recovered Oswald's wallet there, too,' Croy wrote on an image of Tippit's patrol car.
But officially, Dallas police told a different story. The department said it got Oswald's wallet from Oswald himself after his arrest a short time later at the Texas Theatre.
Barrett and Rookstool believe police made that up for the official report because too many officers handled the crucial piece of evidence at the shooting scene.
'They said they took the wallet out of his pocket in the car? That's so much hogwash,' Barrett said. 'That wallet was in [Captain] Westbrook's hand.'
'Bob's in Alabama. Kenneth Croy is in Hamilton, Texas,' Rookstool said. 'They had no relationship with each other than the fate of history put them at the scene of a crime.'
Rookstool says the testimony of Barrett and Croy, Tippit's billfold, and the WFAA film prove that Oswald's wallet was at the scene of the policeman's murder.
More than shell casings and eyewitness recollections, it is the first hard evidence placing Oswald there on that day.
It's significant in tying off a historical loose end and perfecting the record fifty years later.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/wallet-mystery-from-officer-tippits-murder-settled-after-50-years/287-306016477
-
What also doesn't make sense is that none of the reports from 11/22/63 mentioned the Hidell ID being in the contents of Oswald's wallet. As someone noted earlier on this topic, officer Bentley didn't mention the Hiddell ID when he went on TV that day and described the contents of Oswald's wallet. The whole thing is peculiar.
The film footage and photo from the Tippit crime scene indirectly corroborates the FBI agent's (Barrett?) claim about Oswald's wallet being found before he was arrested (assuming the wallet in the film footage wasn't Tippit's).
What explains the discrepancy? I don't know.
There's two ways of looking at the Hidell issue;
1) The Occam's razor approach, Oswald ordered a mail order rifle with the alias Alek Hidell and took it to work and killed the President.
Or
2) The CT approach, where everything and anything needs to be possible, or plain and simply any conspiracy just won't work.
The following compiled list reflects the effort for just a tiny fraction of a planned conspiracy, the faking of Oswald's Hidell alias.
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Klein's coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Klein's microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
JohnM
-
There's two ways of looking at the Hidell issue;
1) The Occam's razor approach, Oswald ordered a mail order rifle with the alias Alek Hidell and took it to work and killed the President.
Or
2) The CT approach, where everything and anything needs to be possible, or plain and simply any conspiracy just won't work.
The following compiled list reflects the effort for just a tiny fraction of a planned conspiracy, the faking of Oswald's Hidell alias.
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Klein's coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Klein's microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
JohnM
Just because you make up a list of things you believe must have happened doesn't mean they actually did happen.
What you believe conspirators must have done is nothing more than worthless speculation, just like your "Occam's razor approach" is in reality nothing more than a massive jump to a conclusion based on assumptions.
-
Just because you make up a list of things you believe must have happened doesn't mean they actually did happen.
What you believe conspirators must have done is nothing more than worthless speculation, just like your "Occam's razor approach" is in reality nothing more than a massive jump to a conclusion based on assumptions.
Weedyman,
How and why do you figure the bad guys created the Hidell persona?
-
OK, this is totally irrelevant, but it is pretty wild:
Perhaps you already know this, but in 1997 a writer bought the grave plot next to Oswald’s at the Shannon Rose Hill Cemetery in Ft. Worth and installed a joke marker with his pen name, “Nick Beef.”
(https://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/tx/TXFTWoswald__andrea1.jpg)
More relevant is that someone else bought a plot a dozen paces from Oswald and installed a marker that simply says “Hidell.”
(https://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/tx/TXFTWoswaldgrave_balfour.jpg)
In 2019, a newspaper reporter brought the significance of Hidell to the cemetery management, which then removed the marker. https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article228503184.html.
Yet another of my significant contributions to JFKA research. You’re welcome. (If you're thinking about a marker that says "Harvey and Lee," I'm way ahead of you. It's already been ordered.)
-
In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, it appears the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun and without a care even has it aimed close to the hand of the detective who is pointing something out within the wallet and then when the cop hands over the wallet, he quickly points the gun away and more towards himself.
The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera and thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back, the cop responds correctly by diverting the aim of the gun and away from the direction of this civilian.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxPsgRHQ/Giving-wallet-back.gif)
BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.
JohnM
John, I agree with you, 100%.
-
What also doesn't make sense is that none of the reports from 11/22/63 mentioned the Hidell ID being in the contents of Oswald's wallet. As someone noted earlier on this topic, officer Bentley didn't mention the Hiddell ID when he went on TV that day and described the contents of Oswald's wallet. The whole thing is peculiar.
The film footage and photo from the Tippit crime scene indirectly corroborates the FBI agent's (Barrett?) claim about Oswald's wallet being found before he was arrested (assuming the wallet in the film footage wasn't Tippit's).
What explains the discrepancy? I don't know.
Here's an article from 2013 on the two wallets mystery:
Wallet mystery from Officer Tippit's murder settled after 50 years
DALLAS No other crimes have been more analyzed or scrutinized than what happened in Dallas a half-century ago.
'It's been picked apart for decades,' said Farris Rookstool III, JFK historian and former FBI analyst, 'but the tragedy of this is no one has ever taken the due diligence of time to really put these pieces together until now.'
After five decades, Rookstool is sharing the strongest evidence yet that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Dallas police Officer J.D. Tippit.
'The wallet puts him definitively at the scene of the crime,' Rookstool said.
Oswald's wallet has been a persistent mystery in recent years one Rookstool started studying. The mysterious billfold first appeared on WFAA in the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
WFAA program director Jay Watson, anchoring live coverage of the assassination, asked Channel 8 photographer Ron Reiland to join him on set and discuss film that Reiland just shot on the Oak Cliff street where Tippit was slain.
'Let's roll the film and we'll narrate it as we go,' Watson said on air.
Reiland, describing each scene to Watson, presumed the wallet seen on the film belonged to Officer Tippit.
'There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is Oswald's wallet,' Rookstool said.
So, Rookstool set out to prove it.
He compared the Channel 8 black-and-white film to Oswald's actual wallet in the National Archives. On each of them, circular snaps are visible, along with metal strips and perhaps the biggest similarity a zipper over the cash compartment.
Oswald's wallet is a different color and has different characteristics than Tippit's.
This month, for the first time, Marie Tippit shared her late husband's wallet with WFAA. Tippit's is black, has a different style snap no metal bar like Oswald's and does not have a zipper over the cash compartment.
A half hour east of Birmingham, Alabama is the only man alive today who saw Oswald's wallet at Tippit's murder scene.
'As I walked up, I happened to not knowingly step in a puddle of blood, which was Tippit's blood,' retired FBI Special Agent Bob Barrett recalled. 'I thought, 'Oh God, what have I done?''
He spent 27 years in the FBI and was asked to go to the Tippit murder scene that day by his friend, Dallas County Sheriff Bill Decker.
After arriving at 10th and Patton in North Oak Cliff, Barrett said, he recognized a Dallas police captain thumbing through a billfold.
'He said, 'Bob, you know all the crooks in town, all the hoodlums, etc. You ever heard of a Lee Harvey Oswald?' I said, 'No, I never have.' He said 'How about an Alec Hiddell?' I said, 'No. I never have heard of him either,'' Barrett explained. 'Why would they be asking me questions about Oswald and Hiddell if it wasn't in that wallet?'
In addition, the first Dallas cop on the Tippit crime scene said he actually recovered the wallet.
Sgt. Kenneth Croy, a reserve officer at the time, put it in writing on an 8' x 10' picture for Rookstool.
'First on the scene, recovered Oswald's wallet there, too,' Croy wrote on an image of Tippit's patrol car.
But officially, Dallas police told a different story. The department said it got Oswald's wallet from Oswald himself after his arrest a short time later at the Texas Theatre.
Barrett and Rookstool believe police made that up for the official report because too many officers handled the crucial piece of evidence at the shooting scene.
'They said they took the wallet out of his pocket in the car? That's so much hogwash,' Barrett said. 'That wallet was in [Captain] Westbrook's hand.'
'Bob's in Alabama. Kenneth Croy is in Hamilton, Texas,' Rookstool said. 'They had no relationship with each other than the fate of history put them at the scene of a crime.'
Rookstool says the testimony of Barrett and Croy, Tippit's billfold, and the WFAA film prove that Oswald's wallet was at the scene of the policeman's murder.
More than shell casings and eyewitness recollections, it is the first hard evidence placing Oswald there on that day.
It's significant in tying off a historical loose end and perfecting the record fifty years later.
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/wallet-mystery-from-officer-tippits-murder-settled-after-50-years/287-306016477
This boils down to the following. First, the police would have believed that any discarded wallet found at the crime scene would have been linked to the shooting. Second, the name associated with the wallet owner would have immediately been broadcast as a potential suspect in the murder. We know the latter didn't happen. What does that tell us? That the "wallet" was not found at the scene. Whatever it is, the police know the owner is not a suspect. That leaves a witness wallet or Tippit's citation book.
-
This boils down the to the following. First, the police would have believed that any discarded wallet found at the crime scene would have been linked to the shooting. Second, the name associated with the wallet owner would have immediately been broadcast as a potential suspect in the murder. We know the latter didn't happen. What does that tell us? That the "wallet" was not found at the scene. Whatever it is, the police know the owner is not a suspect. That leaves a witness wallet or Tippit's citation book.
So it's your belief that Agent Barrett and Officer Croy were mistaken?
They very well may have been mistaken but nevertheless, we're stuck with two conflicting accounts of where the Dallas PD gained custody of Oswald's wallet.
Based on the available information, neither of us can conclusively say they were mistaken or lied.
-
"First on the scene recovered Oswald's wallet there too."
" K H Croy Sgt. Kenneth Croy DPD Reservve #86"(?)
Makes it clear what was found at the Tippit scene.
-
Bump for Bill Brown.
Bentley took a wallet from Oswald in the car which took them from the Texas Theater to the police station. None of the officers in the car have mentioned, in their contemporary reports, that a Hidell ID was found in that wallet.
Gus Rose, who had just arrived at the police station after Oswald had been brought in, was the first officer to talk to him. Just before that some unidentified officer gave Rose a wallet and told him it was Oswald's.
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
That wallet did contain the Hidell ID.
At 3.25 PM traffic officer Bardin submitted a black wallet with some other items to the evidence room.
How did Westbrook and Barrett obtain "Oswald's wallet" at the police station and how did it end up in the possession of officer Bardin?
And what was Westbrook looking at on 10th street? There was speculation about it being Tippit's wallet but that has long been debunked.
Yet more questions that you leave unanswered?
-
Bump for Bill Brown.
Yet more questions that you leave unanswered?
Save up all your questions and you can present your case when you and Bill have your online debate. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Makes it clear what was found at the Tippit scene.
Sure does Michael, we can add that evidence to the case against Oswald, Good work!
JohnM
-
Save up all your questions and you can present your case when you and Bill have your online debate. Thumb1:
JohnM
Give it a break, Mytton.
Brown didn't answer a single question in our mini debate. He's also not answering questions on this board. I'm not going to waste my time debating him again.
-
Sure does Michael, we can add that evidence to the case against Oswald, Good work!
JohnM
Thumb1: Provide another lame excuse for the wallet in his pocket and you're good to go.
BTW, completely searched in the car: NO bus pass , No bullets - Uh oh
-
Thumb1: Provide another lame excuse for the wallet in is pocket and you're good to go.
BTW, completely searched in the car: NO bus pass , No bullets - Uh oh
Provide another lame excuse for the wallet in is pocket and you're good to go.
You can't be serious and this desperate!
There was always only one Oswald wallet, but if you want anyone to believe your fairy tale you've first got to explain;
1) Why would the conspirators plant an extra wallet when as you say, Oswald as is customary had a wallet in his pocket? DOH!
2) If the plan was to frame Oswald, why on Earth did the DP hide the evidence of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene? Double DOH!
3) Why wasn't the name in the wallet broadcast on the Police radio IMMEDIATELY which was well before Oswald's arrest? Triple DOH!
4) Why wasn't the wallet in any Police reports? Quadruple DOH!
5) Why did it take decades till this extra wallet was known about? Quintuple DOH!
6) How could anyone predict ahead of time that Oswald would be in the vicinity and be positively identified by a stack of Eyewitnesses? Sextuple DOH!
Good luck giving a plausible narrative that fits? Hahahaha!
BTW, completely searched in the car: NO bus pass , No bullets - Uh oh
Hilarious, so they didn't find a piece of paper, what did you expect Oswald to do with his Bus Transfer, give them all one heck of a paper cut? :D
They had Oswald's weapon and you think the DP "completely searched" Oswald while he was wedged in the back seat? You can't make this up! :D :D :D
JohnM
-
You can't be serious and this desperate!
There was always only one Oswald wallet, but if you want anyone to believe your fairy tale you've first got to explain;
1) Why would the conspirators plant an extra wallet when as you say, Oswald as is customary had a wallet in his pocket? DOH!
2) If the plan was to frame Oswald, why on Earth did the DP hide the evidence of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene? Double DOH!
3) Why wasn't the name in the wallet broadcast on the Police radio IMMEDIATELY which was well before Oswald's arrest? Triple DOH!
4) Why wasn't the wallet in any Police reports? Quadruple DOH!
5) Why did it take decades till this extra wallet was known about? Quintuple DOH!
6) How could anyone predict ahead of time that Oswald would be in the vicinity and be positively identified by a stack of Eyewitnesses? Sextuple DOH!
Good luck giving a plausible narrative that fits? Hahahaha!
Hilarious, so they didn't find a piece of paper, what did you expect Oswald to do with his Bus Transfer, give them all one heck of a paper cut? :D
They had Oswald's weapon and you think the DP "completely searched" Oswald while he was wedged in the back seat? You can't make this up! :D :D :D
JohnM
BS: Distraction, every one. Could never satisfy your preset bias conclusion - waste of time.
Doesn't mean a thing.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4290/35523265361_492cc8b5eb_c.jpg)
-
Give it a break, Mytton.
Brown didn't answer a single question in our mini debate. He's also not answering questions on this board. I'm not going to waste my time debating him again.
Brown didn't answer a single question in our mini debate. He's also not answering questions on this board.
You clearly don't know how a debate works.
Bill presents his evidence and you in turn present your evidence, and the LNers, CT's and interested others will declare a winner see how easy that is!
I'm not going to waste my time debating him again.
YAWN! You keep saying that but every time Bill posts anything re Tippit, you're always replying and voicing your disapproval, just have a proper debate and prove that you know the case better than Bill. Easy Peasy.
JohnM
-
BS: Distraction, every one. Could never satisfy your preset bias conclusion - waste of time.
Doesn't mean a thing.
So in other words you don't where your evidence of a decades old memory goes and you can't provide a suitable narrative that fits but you're damn sure it means something, something conspiratorial? Muhahaha!
JohnM
-
....suitable narrative....?
JohnM
You've been trying for 60+ years. - how's that going?
-
You've been trying for 60+ years. - how's that going?
Huh?
What are you talking about, you've got it ass backwards, the official narrative has been rock solid for 60+ years, Oswald went to Irving on an unscheduled night got his rifle then took it to work and killed the President, then while in flight from the scene killed Tippit, the second Dallas Policeman killed by gunfire in the line of duty in the previous decade, what are the chances that Oswald was arrested nearby while trying to kill more Policemen with the same revolver linked to the scene of the Tippit crime!
Whereas poor, poor Michael, it's you and your team that are the one's struggling to present an alternate narrative, when will some CT be able to provide evidence of a conspiracy? Waiting...ZZZzzzzzz.....
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZYDqhJnB/Dallas-Police-killed-in-line-of-duty-1951-1967.jpg)
JohnM
-
Huh?
...struggling to present an alternate narrative, when will some CT be able to provide evidence of a conspiracy?
JohnM
I don't do alternate narratives. No need. The broken inconsistencies through out this case are enough direct evidence of conspiracy and coverup.
While nutters like Mytton make up lame excuses on the fly..."Frazier didn't pay attention - no wait, it was, Frasier lied". or the wallet was a citizen's, that's it, no wait, it's proof that Oswald was there"...just lame excuse after excuse, each one backed into your fairy tale narrative 60 years too late. Whatever it takes.
Then, in here like a minor bird, day after day squawking at the wall. "bawk, bawk...rock solid for 60+ years...bawk bawk"
Meanwhile, a mandate was dictated in the Katzenbach memo on the 25th....
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin...."
-
There's a wallet in his pocket: "...Lee H. Oswald. O-S-W-A-L-D..."
There's a wallet at the Tippit scene: "...‘How about an Alek Hidell?’ "
"FBI agent Jim Hosty, who had responsibility for watching Oswald, wrote that a wallet containing identification for both Oswald and
“Alek Hidell” was found near a pool of blood."
Thumb1: looks like a setup to me.
-
You clearly don't know how a debate works.
Bill presents his evidence and you in turn present your evidence, and the LNers, CT's and interested others will declare a winner see how easy that is!
YAWN! You keep saying that but every time Bill posts anything re Tippit, you're always replying and voicing your disapproval, just have a proper debate and prove that you know the case better than Bill. Easy Peasy.
JohnM
Bill presents his evidence and you in turn present your evidence, and the LNers, CT's and interested others will declare a winner see how easy that is!
I'm so glad that you understand how a debate works..... pfffffffffffff :D
Presenting evidence by itself is easy and can be done in writing on this forum. You don't need a debate for that.
In a real debate the evidence presented by the other side is challenged, questioned and defended. In other words, questions are asked and answered by both sides.
That's the only way it can be determined if the evidence actually holds up under scrutiny or not.
So, how would that work when Brown doesn't answer questions?
YAWN! You keep saying that but every time Bill posts anything re Tippit, you're always replying and voicing your disapproval, just have a proper debate and prove that you know the case better than Bill. Easy Peasy.
So, now asking questions is "voicing my disapproval"? Brown made a claim and I asked him to explain further..... He doesn't answer! Go figure... one could conclude that he lacks the arguments to answer.
just have a proper debate and prove that you know the case better than Bill. Easy Peasy.
I couldn't care less if Brown knows the case better than me. In fact, he probably does. Or at least his preferred version of the case.
Knowing (a version) of the case doesn't automatically mean being right. Ever thought of that, genius?
-
So it's your belief that Agent Barrett and Officer Croy were mistaken?
They very well may have been mistaken but nevertheless, we're stuck with two conflicting accounts of where the Dallas PD gained custody of Oswald's wallet.
Based on the available information, neither of us can conclusively say they were mistaken or lied.
We can apply common sense and logic. How about just answering the questions that take us down the yellow brick road.
1) If the police had found a discarded wallet at the crime scene, wouldn't they have cause to believe that the owner was their suspect who dropped his wallet during a police encounter that went bad? It would be a bizarre coincidence to find a discarded wallet at the scene of police officer's murder.
2) If they obtained a name from the wallet, wouldn't they immediately broadcast that name over the radio to be on the lookout for this individual? We know that they didn't do this. What does that tell you?
3) If the police or someone else were involved in the framing of Oswald by planting a fake wallet at the scene, wouldn't they anticipate that Oswald would have his actual wallet on his person when arrested and that is the wallet that they would suppress?
-
We can apply common sense and logic.
I've applied logic and common sense to this topic. It doesn't resolve the mystery of the discrepancy regarding the differing accounts of when and where Oswald's wallet was obtained.
As of today, we cannot rule out the possibility that Officer Croy and Agent Barrett's accounts were accurate. We can't dismiss their stories simply because it doesn't line up with the official narrative.
It's a mystery.
-
For what it's worth, Bob Carroll told the Warren Commission that he remembered (during the car ride from the theater to headquarters) two different names being mentioned when the wallet was removed from Oswald's back pocket. Also, Gerald Hill told the Commission that two names were read from the wallet (by Bentley) while in the car on the way to headquarters.
Bentley turned over the wallet (taken from Oswald while inside the car) to Lt. Baker who confirmed, in a 1999 interview with Dale Myers, that the wallet had identifications in two different names inside. The officers involved in the arrest were inside the office of Westbrook. This is where each filled out their reports, re: the arrest inside the theater. The wallet, Westbrook and Barrett were all three inside Westbrook's office at the same time, once they arrived at headquarters from the theater. Baker took the wallet to Fritz' office and described looking inside the wallet and seeing identifications inside in two different names and so he asked Oswald which one he was. Oswald finally stated that his name was Oswald. When Fritz arrived in his office, the wallet was given to Fritz.
C.T. Walker sat with Oswald inside Fritz' office before Fritz arrived. Walker told the Warren Commission that he recalled the wallet contained a photo identification in the name of Hidell.
Fritz kept the wallet in his possession until the next day when he sent it to the crime lab (Crime Scene Search Section of the Identification Bureau) in order to photograph the contents inside. The wallet was returned to Fritz where it stayed in a drawer in his desk along with other items.
Then, according to James Hosty, on Wednesday the 27th, the contents of the desk drawer were turned over to Hosty of the FBI. Hosty photographed the wallet and other items from the desk drawer before sending all of it to Washington.
As for Weidmann's question to me, re: Bardin... Bardin followed Davenport and the ambulance with Tippit to Methodist Hospital. At Methodist, Tippit's body was stripped of it's belongings. Bud Owens testified that Tippit's wallet, badge, handcuffs, wrist watch and other items were placed in a large paper envelope and turned over to Bardin to be taken to the property room of the Identification Bureau. This is all I know, re: Bardin and ANY wallet.
-
I've applied logic and common sense to this topic. It doesn't resolve the mystery of the discrepancy regarding the differing accounts of when and where Oswald's wallet was obtained.
As of today, we cannot rule out the possibility that Officer Croy and Agent Barrett's accounts were accurate. We can't dismiss their stories simply because it doesn't line up with the official narrative.
It's a mystery.
Why not address the questions? Start with this one. If the police had found a discarded wallet at the crime scene, wouldn't they have cause to believe it was related to the crime and potentially owned by the murder suspect? If so, wouldn't they have immediately radioed out the name of the suspect?
-
I've applied logic and common sense to this topic. It doesn't resolve the mystery of the discrepancy regarding the differing accounts of when and where Oswald's wallet was obtained.
As of today, we cannot rule out the possibility that Officer Croy and Agent Barrett's accounts were accurate. We can't dismiss their stories simply because it doesn't line up with the official narrative.
It's a mystery.
"Discrepancy" ... "mystery" ... "possibility."
This is how conspiracy logic works. Every "discrepancy" is a "mystery" and the foundation for a conspiracy-oriented "possibility" that should raise questions about the "official narrative," as though the term official narrative were automatically suspect.
In events far less complex and chaotic than the JFKA and its aftermath, there are always discrepancies that are never resolved. A narrative is constructed from the best evidence and most reasonable and plausible inferences. When we're done, we can in fact reject the discrepancies precisely because they do not mesh with the best evidence and most reasonable and plausible inferences.
Conspiracy logic is almost completely backwards. Discrepancies and speculation about them drive the conspiracy bus, as though the official narrative were nothing more than an attempt to avoid the discrepancies and were not in fact based on the best evidence and most reasonable and plausible inferences.
-
For what it's worth, Bob Carroll told the Warren Commission that he remembered (during the car ride from the theater to headquarters) two different names being mentioned when the wallet was removed from Oswald's back pocket. Also, Gerald Hill told the Commission that two names were read from the wallet (by Bentley) while in the car on the way to headquarters.
Bentley turned over the wallet (taken from Oswald while inside the car) to Lt. Baker who confirmed, in a 1999 interview with Dale Myers, that the wallet had identifications in two different names inside. The officers involved in the arrest were inside the office of Westbrook. This is where each filled out their reports, re: the arrest inside the theater. The wallet, Westbrook and Barrett were all three inside Westbrook's office at the same time, once they arrived at headquarters from the theater. Baker took the wallet to Fritz' office and described looking inside the wallet and seeing identifications inside in two different names and so he asked Oswald which one he was. Oswald finally stated that his name was Oswald. When Fritz arrived in his office, the wallet was given to Fritz.
C.T. Walker sat with Oswald inside Fritz' office before Fritz arrived. Walker told the Warren Commission that he recalled the wallet contained a photo identification in the name of Hidell.
Fritz kept the wallet in his possession until the next day when he sent it to the crime lab (Crime Scene Search Section of the Identification Bureau) in order to photograph the contents inside. The wallet was returned to Fritz where it stayed in a drawer in his desk along with other items.
Then, according to James Hosty, on Wednesday the 27th, the contents of the desk drawer were turned over to Hosty of the FBI. Hosty photographed the wallet and other items from the desk drawer before sending all of it to Washington.
As for Weidmann's question to me, re: Bardin... Bardin followed Davenport and the ambulance with Tippit to Methodist Hospital. At Methodist, Tippit's body was stripped of it's belongings. Bud Owens testified that Tippit's wallet, badge, handcuffs, wrist watch and other items were placed in a large paper envelope and turned over to Bardin to be taken to the property room of the Identification Bureau. This is all I know, re: Bardin and ANY wallet.
For what it's worth, Bob Carroll told the Warren Commission that he remembered (during the car ride from the theater to headquarters) two different names being mentioned when the wallet was removed from Oswald's back pocket. Also, Gerald Hill told the Commission that two names were read from the wallet (by Bentley) while in the car on the way to headquarters.
Vague memories, some four months after the fact, by two officers who did not mention a second name in their contemporary reports isn't very compelling evidence.
Bentley turned over the wallet (taken from Oswald while inside the car) to Lt. Baker who confirmed, in a 1999 interview with Dale Myers, that the wallet had identifications in two different names inside.
So, you rely on a 36 year old memory by Lt. Baker, that does not match the known fact that Gus Rose had a wallet with two ID's in it when he talked to Oswald, just after the latter had been brought into the police station.
Mr. BALL. And then you found two or three cards on him?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
How can Bentley have given the wallet to Lt Baker, when Gus Rose was handed it by an unidentified person? And even if Baker misremembered and it was Rose who gave the wallet to him, how could he possibly have know that it was the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car?
The officers involved in the arrest were inside the office of Westbrook. This is where each filled out their reports, re: the arrest inside the theater. The wallet, Westbrook and Barrett were all three inside Westbrook's office at the same time, once they arrived at headquarters from the theater.
Let's see if I understand this correctly. The officers involved in the arrest (likely without Bentley who went to the hospital), Westbrook and Barrett were all in the same office, writing their arrest reports. And then, the men who were in the car with Oswald when Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him, learn, what (if Carroll and Hill are to be believed) they already knew, that the wallet contained two ID's and (according to Carroll's testimony) also two addresses and nobody came up with the idea to include this detail in their report? Really?
And Barrett said that he nearly stepped in a pool of Tippit's blood, which is a vivid recollection that places him at the scene. Westbrook, looking at the wallet and asking Barrett if he had ever heard of Oswald or Hidell, at the scene, seems plausible to me. But why would Westbrook ask Barrett that question when they are in his office and they already have Oswald in custody?
Could it be that Baker's memory simply wasn't all that reliable, some 36 years after the fact? Or does that only apply to witnesses who, years later, say something that does not match the official narrative?
As for Weidmann's question to me, re: Bardin... Bardin followed Davenport and the ambulance with Tippit to Methodist Hospital. At Methodist, Tippit's body was stripped of it's belongings. Bud Owens testified that Tippit's wallet, badge, handcuffs, wrist watch and other items were placed in a large paper envelope and turned over to Bardin to be taken to the property room of the Identification Bureau. This is all I know, re: Bardin and ANY wallet.
You are correct. I had placed the receipt of the property room in the wrong folder. My bad!
-
Bentley took a wallet from Oswald in the car which took them from the Texas Theater to the police station. None of the officers in the car have mentioned, in their contemporary reports, that a Hidell ID was found in that wallet.
Gus Rose, who had just arrived at the police station after Oswald had been brought in, was the first officer to talk to him. Just before that some unidentified officer gave Rose a wallet and told him it was Oswald's.
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
That wallet did contain the Hidell ID.
At 3.25 PM traffic officer Bardin submitted a black wallet with some other items to the evidence room.
How did Westbrook and Barrett obtain "Oswald's wallet" at the police station and how did it end up in the possession of officer Bardin?
And what was Westbrook looking at on 10th street? There was speculation about it being Tippit's wallet but that has long been debunked.
Bump for Bill Brown.
Yet more questions that you leave unanswered?
As for Weidmann's question to me, re: Bardin... Bardin followed Davenport and the ambulance with Tippit to Methodist Hospital. At Methodist, Tippit's body was stripped of it's belongings. Bud Owens testified that Tippit's wallet, badge, handcuffs, wrist watch and other items were placed in a large paper envelope and turned over to Bardin to be taken to the property room of the Identification Bureau. This is all I know, re: Bardin and ANY wallet.
You are correct. I had placed the receipt of the property room in the wrong folder. My bad!
Nothing like being ridiculed for "not answering questions" and the whole time, the one asking the questions didn't know what he was talking about.
-
Nothing like being ridiculed for "not answering questions"
You didn't answer my questions.
Bentley giving the wallet (taken from Oswald in the car) to Lt Baker (if that actually happened) tells me nothing about how Westbrook and Barrett obtained the wallet with two ID's in it.
Nor does it tell me what Westbrook was looking at on 10th street,
and the whole time, the one asking the questions didn't know what he was talking about.
Feel superior now? Anybody can make a mistake but only a 5 year old uses the mistake being admitted to as a way to insult and attack. You're some nasty piece of work, Brown!
-
You didn't answer my questions.
Bentley giving the wallet (taken from Oswald in the car) to Lt Baker (if that actually happened) tells me nothing about how Westbrook and Barrett obtained the wallet with two ID's in it.
Nor does it tell me what Westbrook was looking at on 10th street,
and the whole time, the one asking the questions didn't know what he was talking about.
Feel superior now? Anybody can make a mistake but only a 5 year old uses the mistake being admitted to as a way to insult and attack. You're some nasty piece of work, Brown!
You (once again) completely miss the point.
I wouldn't be insulting and attacking you if you didn't attempt to first ridicule me into answering your questions.
As for Westbrook and Barrett, I never said they "obtained" any wallet. I said Westbrook, Barrett and the wallet were all three present at the same time inside Westbrook's office when they all brought Oswald in from the theater. Westbrook's office is where all of the officers involved in the arrest inside the theater gathered to make their reports.
-
You (once again) completely miss the point.
I wouldn't be insulting and attacking you if you didn't attempt to first ridicule me into answering your questions.
As for Westbrook and Barrett, I never said they "obtained" any wallet. I said Westbrook, Barrett and the wallet were all three present at the same time inside Westbrook's office when they all brought Oswald in from the theater. Westbrook's office is where all of the officers involved in the arrest inside the theater gathered to make their reports.
I wouldn't be insulting and attacking you if you didn't attempt to first ridicule me into answering your questions.
Touchy, touchy
But at least you agree that you were insulting and attacking me. That's something.
As for ridiculing you into answering my questions, I didn't do that at all. I merely said, as a statement of fact, that you never answer my questions and time after time you prove me correct.
If you feel that's ridicule then that's your problem.
As for Westbrook and Barrett, I never said they "obtained" any wallet.
You suggested that Barrett was possibly misremembering about where Westbrook asked him about the two names.
Oswald's wallet, along with both Westbrook and Barrett, were inside Westbrook's office once Oswald was brought in. Let me say that again... All three (Oswald's wallet, Westbrook & Barrett) were inside Westbrook's office after Oswald was brought in. I believe Barrett is being honest when he says Westbrook asked him about Oswald/Hidell identifications inside a wallet. I just think Barrett is misremembering where it was that the brief conversation took place, i.e. inside Westbrook's office versus at Tenth & Patton. All of this is covered in "With Malice" by Dale Myers.
All of this is covered in "With Malice" by Dale Myers.
Wow, so it must be true, right? :D
Btw, are you now suggesting that Westbrook asked Barrett the question without actually (and I paraphrase) obtaining the wallet?
And, more importantly, why in the world would Westbrook ask Barrett that question in his office, when Oswald is already at the police station?
I said Westbrook, Barrett and the wallet were all three present at the same time inside Westbrook's office when they all brought Oswald in from the theater.
Westbrook's office is where all of the officers involved in the arrest inside the theater gathered to make their reports.
You haven't explained at all how the wallet came to be in Westbrook's office and that it was there at the same time Westbrook and Barrett were. We know that a wallet containing two ID's was given to Gus Rose when Oswald was brought into the police station. We have no credible information about where that wallet went to after Rose's conversation with Oswald.
-
I wouldn't be insulting and attacking you if you didn't attempt to first ridicule me into answering your questions.
Touchy, touchy
But at least you agree that you were insulting and attacking me. That's something.
As for ridiculing you into answering my questions, I didn't do that at all. I merely said, as a statement of fact, that you never answer my questions and time after time you prove me correct.
If you feel that's ridicule then that's your problem.
As for Westbrook and Barrett, I never said they "obtained" any wallet.
You suggested that Barrett was possibly misremembering about where Westbrook asked him about the two names.
All of this is covered in "With Malice" by Dale Myers.
Wow, so it must be true, right? :D
Btw, are you now suggesting that Westbrook asked Barrett the question without actually (and I paraphrase) obtaining the wallet?
And, more importantly, why in the world would Westbrook ask Barrett that question in his office, when Oswald is already at the police station?
I said Westbrook, Barrett and the wallet were all three present at the same time inside Westbrook's office when they all brought Oswald in from the theater.
Westbrook's office is where all of the officers involved in the arrest inside the theater gathered to make their reports.
You haven't explained at all how the wallet came to be in Westbrook's office and that it was there at the same time Westbrook and Barrett were. We know that a wallet containing two ID's was given to Gus Rose when Oswald was brought into the police station. We have no credible information about where that wallet went to after Rose's conversation with Oswald.
Does all of this mean that you're finally ready to a live debate with me?
-
Does all of this mean that you're finally ready to a live debate with me?
Don't hold your breath Bill. "Martin" from "Europe" is all talk. He will come with a thousand reasons not to debate you. A real coward.
-
Does all of this mean that you're finally ready to a live debate with me?
It actually means that there is no reason at all for me to debate anything with you.
If you are not answering my questions, and you never do, I might just as well waste my time talking to a brick wall.
I'll ask again; why are you so desperate to debate me?
Here's a suggestion; start answering my questions if you want me to debate you. Who knows, perhaps I'll reconsider.
-
Don't hold your breath Bill. "Martin" from "Europe" is all talk. He will come with a thousand reasons not to debate you. A real coward.
Said the guy who came up with this one;
The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs at the TSBD within 75 seconds after is the shots is....... THAT IT HAPPENED - Richard Smith
Hilarious!
-
I continue to be befuddled by what the significance of all this is supposed to be. What is it?
OK, in the utter chaos and confusion of the JFKA and the Tippit shooting, there is some doubt about whose wallet was found and filmed at the Tippit scene, with several plausible candidates. So what?
OK, in the utter chaos and confusion there is some doubt about precisely how Oswald's wallet was taken from him and handled and some conflict in the recollections and reports of the officers. So what?
If Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit secne, THAT certainly doesn't help the CT cause. What sense would it make for the arresting officers at the Texas Theater to say they had taken a wallet from Oswald if in fact his wallet had been found at the Tippit scene? Surely a wallet at the Tippit scene and no wallet in his pocket at the Texas Theater would have been the perfect "set up," no?
If the CT theory is that a wallet identical to Oswald's was planted at the Tippit scene, which is the only CT-friendly scenario I can see, this raises all the "epistemological" questions I raised above and that some CTer characterized as "useless garbage" because he couldn't answer them. What are the answers, please? Make sense of your "planting" theory for me.
What significance would the name Hidell have been to anyone on the afternoon of the JFKA? Why would anyone have "planted" a Hidell ID on Oswald unless they somehow knew he had ordered a rifle using that name in March? Is that the theory - the Hidell ID was added to tie him to the rifle?
Yes, I'm lost. What is the significance, if any, of whatever point Martin thinks he's making? OK, some of the recollections and reports don't mesh, but that's entirely to be expected. What is supposed to be suspicious or fodder for CT theorizing here?
Is this simply much ado about nothing, or what? Enquiring minds want to know.
-
I continue to be befuddled by what the significance of all this is supposed to be. What is it?
It’s okay to admit that you don’t know the answers to some questions Lance.
What we know is that this is an unresolved issue related to the Tippit murder investigation. What we don’t know is what it means.
A ) Barrett and Croy either lied or were mistaken.
B ) The officers who said Oswald had his wallet when he was arrested either lied or were mistaken.
C ) None of the officers lied or were mistaken because the police found more than one wallet with Oswald’s ID that day. If there were two wallets belonging to Oswald, what happened to the second one?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. If “C” is the correct answer, I don’t know if it means someone tried to frame Oswald for Tippit’s murder while also connecting him to the Hidell alias, or if it means LHO carried more than one wallet that day.
-
It’s okay to admit that you don’t know the answer to some questions Lance.
What we know is that this is an unresolved issue related to the Tippit murder investigation. What we don’t know is what it means.
A ) Barrett and Croy either lied or were mistaken.
B ) The officers who said Oswald had his wallet when he was arrested either lied or were mistaken.
C ) None of the officers lied or were mistaken because the police found more than one wallet with Oswald’s ID that day. If there were two wallets belonging to Oswald, what happened to the second one?
I don’t know the answers to these questions. If “C” is the correct answer, I don’t know if it means someone tried to frame Oswald for Tippit’s murder while also connecting him to the Hidell alias, or if it means LHO carried more than one wallet that day.
But that's kind of my point. "Were mistaken," given the chaos and confusion, is perfectly understandable and is neither suspicious nor fodder for CT theorizing.
If the preferred answer is "lied," then one should be able to articulate a plausible reason for why they would have lied.
Ditto if there were two wallets. One should be able to articulate a plausible reason.
In short, one should at least be able to provide a coherent answer to my little "What sense would that have made?" questions.
If we admit the answer will always remain a mystery, then the debate is - or should be - at the level of which scenario seems the most plausible and makes the most sense. But that's exactly where those who are making the most noise - looking at you, Martin - don't seem to want to go.
-
But that's kind of my point. "Were mistaken," given the chaos and confusion, is perfectly understandable and is neither suspicious nor fodder for CT theorizing.
If the preferred answer is "lied," then one should be able to articulate a plausible reason for why they would have lied.
I don't have a preferred answer.
You're welcome to assume that innocent mistakes were made by the Dallas PD. I'm open to that but also consider the possibilities for negligence and malice.
Ditto if there were two wallets. One should be able to articulate a plausible reason.
I gave two plausible explanations. Here it goes again:
- someone planted a wallet with Oswald's name and the Hidell ID at the Tippit murder scene
- Oswald carried more than one wallet that day and dropped one at the Tippit murder scene
The former would indicate a conspiracy. The latter is plausible even without a conspiracy.
Again, I admit that I don't know what to make of the "Two wallets" story. All we can do is speculate for now.
In short, one should at least be able to provide a coherent answer to my little "What sense would that have made?" questions.
If we admit the answer will always remain a mystery, then the debate is - or should be - at the level of which scenario seems the most plausible and makes the most sense.
It's not always possible to do that Lance.
Lots of historical events have unresolved questions. There's absolutely nothing wrong with debating or speculating about unresolved questions in a historical event.
As of today, we're unable to say with 100% certainty that FBI agent Barrett and Dallas PD officer Croy, were mistaken or lied about Oswald's wallet being found at the Tippit murder scene. There's even news footage showing police officers inspecting a wallet at the Tippit scene.
What are we supposed to do with this information? Ignore it?
-
But that's kind of my point. "Were mistaken," given the chaos and confusion, is perfectly understandable and is neither suspicious nor fodder for CT theorizing.
If the preferred answer is "lied," then one should be able to articulate a plausible reason for why they would have lied.
Ditto if there were two wallets. One should be able to articulate a plausible reason.
In short, one should at least be able to provide a coherent answer to my little "What sense would that have made?" questions.
If we admit the answer will always remain a mystery, then the debate is - or should be - at the level of which scenario seems the most plausible and makes the most sense. But that's exactly where those who are making the most noise - looking at you, Martin - don't seem to want to go.
The CT's don't need a reason, it's like Capasse told me a few days ago, he don't need no stinkin' alternate narratives, just pointing out the alleged problems with the evidence is enough proof for him! Personally I find this way of thinking to be extremely unsatisfying, the CT's have accumulated a wealth of allegations so it must lead somewhere, right?
In the case of the extra wallet at the Tippit crime scene, this to the devout CT is the shred of proof they are looking for to claim a conspiracy, because after 60+ years any evidence of conspiracy is virtually non existent so whatever morsel they can come up with is devoured like a rabid dog!
Also to a CT an extra wallet with the Hidell ID could mean that this wallet was swapped with Oswald's real wallet and thus the planted Hidell alias is again proof of conspiracy but planting the Hidell wallet in Oswald's wallet would still fulfil this criteria? The added difficulties in manufacturing, planting and then hiding the Tippit crime scene wallet makes zero sense.
The CT's like to believe that the Hidell alias was invented to cover the "fake" rifle and revolver purchases but as I've said before just linking the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" with these "fake" purchases would be far far easier and probably more convincing because why add extra steps which require a ton of extra work?
Here off the top of my head is the extra steps of planting the Hidell alias into the official narrative, with all the possible problems of this deceit being discovered in a multitude of ways, why bother?
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Klein's coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Klein's microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
JohnM
-
I gave two plausible explanations. Here it goes again:
- someone planted a wallet with Oswald's name and the Hidell ID at the Tippit murder scene
- Oswald carried more than one wallet that day and dropped one at the Tippit murder scene
I think you're confusing or conflating "plausible" with "possible."
Sure, those are "possible" scenarios.
They become "plausible," if at all, when you can articulate what sense they would have made and why they make more sense than more mundane scenarios that seem to me to make far more sense.
When you start talking of planting a wallet at the Tippit scene with a Hidell ID in it, you are automatically in the realm of conspirators who know the Hidell name was used to purchase the rifle in March and for some reason think that including the Hidell ID will further their conspiratorial agenda. I have a difficult time making any sense of that.
-
I think you're confusing or conflating "plausible" with "possible."
I understand the meanings of "plausible" and "possible".
If I typed "plausible", it was intentional.
-
Since Martin & The Sock People (was that a rock group?) will not tackle my inconvenient questions, I have been forced to don my swami robe, enter into deep meditation, and attempt to answer them myself. This is a tentative effort, but I find it rather convincing. Team Martin can surely tweak it into absolute conspiracy gospel.
1. The conspirators – we’ll simply call them the Big Boys – realize early on that an ex-Marine former defector with a Russian wife could come in handy down the road. They have no specific plan at this point, but they like to think ahead.
2. In March, the Big Boys order the Carcano rifle from Klein’s using Oswald’s PO box and the Hidell name on the order. Big Boy contacts in the PO make sure the rifle never reaches Oswald. The Big Boys now have a pretty compelling piece of evidence if they ever come up with a plan of some sort. Despite being Big Boys, they aren’t too sharp about firearms; hence the Carcano - or maybe they just think a Carcano seems like something Oswald would order.
3. In the ensuing months, the Big Boys fake the backyard photos and crank out several fake Hidell IDs. Now all they need is a plan of some sort. They're starting to think maybe the plan should be something like assassinating JFK. Yes, that would be Big Boy sort of stuff, and JFK is kind of a nuisance.
4. Oswald, with or without the assistance of the Big Boys, lands a job at the TSBD. Let’s say without, or this will start to sound ridiculous.
5. On November 9, Joseph Milteer makes his famous statement to police informant Somersett. The Big Boys, who are plugged into all police matters everywhere, learn of this and slap their foreheads. But of course! An office building with a high-powered rifle and a dumbass patsy! At last they have a use for the rifle and the Hidell stuff.
6. OK, the Big Boys enlist yet another of their many contacts to befriend Oswald and lure him into a plot to hijack a plane to Cuba. As anticipated, this “sounds good” to Oswald, and he’s “on board” (a pun, you’ll notice – the swami is big on puns).
7. The Big Boys arrange for JFK’s motorcade to make the turn at Houston and Elm. This is child’s play because the Big Boys are, in fact, Big Boys. Their tentacles, figuratively speaking, are everywhere.
8. Oswald is instructed to visit Marina the night before since, let’s face it, he may not be seeing her again. He’ll need an excuse for the Thursday visit, so let’s say curtain rods. He’ll need to have some sort of curtain-roddy package the next morning, even if it just contains Ruth Paine’s new 35" Spalding Cash-In putter. This all sounds good to Oswald.
9. Oswald is instructed to lay low in the TSBD until 12:30 or so, at which time his fellow hijackers will “create a ruckus” allowing him to exit the TSBD. Oswald, being fairly sharp, wonders why a ruckus is necessary – why can’t he simply go to lunch at noon? No, no, no – the Presidential visit is a perfect distraction for an aircraft hijacking, and a ruckus will make it even more distracting. Oh, OK.
10. The ruckus occurs. Oswald is a bit surprised at the magnitude of it, but he guesses the hijackers know best.
11. Oswald is instructed to be at his rooming house no later than 1 PM and to retrieve his pistol. (“Why can’t you just provide pistols?” the perceptive Oswald wonders. JUST DO IT, DICKHEAD. OK, I’m on board.)
12. When everything is in place, a police car will toot its horn in front of the rooming house. Oswald is to leave immediately and proceed calmly down the sidewalk. A police vehicle will stop and ferry him to his hijacking contact at the Texas Theater. (“Gee, this seems awfully complicated,” the perceptive Oswald says. JUST DO IT. OK, I’m on board.)
13. Poor young Oswald has, of course, been duped. The police vehicle stops, but Big Boy Sock Puppets appear out of nowhere and gun down Tippit. No one is more surprised than Oswald – well, perhaps Tippit, who just thought he was being paid $50 to be a mysterious taxi for 15 minutes. Now the perceptive Oswald realizes something isn’t quite right. Nevertheless, he MUST get to the Texas Theater and rendezvous with his hijacking contact.
14. With Oswald gone, the Big Boys plant an Oswald wallet at the murder scene, including the nice touch of a fake Hidell ID. If this weren’t clever enough, they have made sure – somehow, we don’t need all the details – that Oswald’s actual wallet also includes a fake Hidell ID. Or maybe they don’t – maybe the fake Hidell ID is just in the murder scene wallet, or the Texas Theater wallet, but anyway it’s there somewhere. Because they are Big Boys, they realize that two wallets could raise some pretty obvious red flags, but getting the fake Hidell ID tied to Oswald is worth the risk because … well, BECAUSE IT JUST IS, OK?
15. At this point, of course, the DPD officers are clueless about all of the above. There are two Oswald wallets, at least one and perhaps two with fake Hidell IDs and, well, WHAT THE HECK? The Big Boys have to work fast now, but money talks. Such DPD officers as are deemed necessary are paid Big Bucks by the Big Boys to say and do silly things that make THEM seem suspicious and ensure the two-wallet confusion will never be resolved.
16. With all that done – whew! – the Big Boys get on with hypnotizing Ruby, altering JFK’s body and such other conspiracy stuff as seems appropriate to tidy up loose ends.
I mean, it’s PERFECT – is it not? Is this not what we can be pretty sure ACTUALLY HAPPENED? When Martin & The Sock People have tightened it up, is it not the stuff of which conspiracy gospel is made?
If it’s not – please, tell me. Prove you can do better!
-
Don't hold your breath Bill. "Martin" from "Europe" is all talk. He will come with a thousand reasons not to debate you. A real coward.
Agreed, Richard. He wants to criticize me for "not answering" his questions all while asking me how Bardin came to be in possession of the Oswald/Hidell wallet. The reality is, Bardin was in possession of TIPPIT'S WALLET when it was taken from Tippit's body at Methodist. If this sort of thing is what I can expect in any sort of a debate, then perhaps it's best for Weidmann to continue to run from said debate.
Weidmann seems to believe that when he says "jump", I must ask "how high?".
-
Agreed, Richard. He wants to criticize me for "not answering" his questions all while asking me how Bardin came to be in possession of the Oswald/Hidell wallet. The reality is, Bardin was in possession of TIPPIT'S WALLET when it was taken from Tippit's body at Methodist. If this sort of thing is what I can expect in any sort of a debate, then perhaps it's best for Weidmann to continue to run from said debate.
Weidmann seems to believe that when he says "jump", I must ask "how high?".
Trying to ridicule me, Billy? :D
If this sort of thing is what I can expect in any sort of a debate, then perhaps it's best for Weidmann to continue to run from said debate.
Only in your arrogant imagination do I "run" from a debate, when in reality you have proven over and over again that there is no point to have a debate with you.
I can only wonder why you are so desperate to debate me. Do you have something to prove?
Weidmann seems to believe that when he says "jump", I must ask "how high?".
Actually, Weidmann believes that a self declared "expert" (which you clearly pretend to be) would be able to answer a simple question or two. Too bad that all you do is run from any question!
-
Oswald's wallet, along with both Westbrook and Barrett, were inside Westbrook's office once Oswald was brought in. Let me say that again... All three (Oswald's wallet, Westbrook & Barrett) were inside Westbrook's office after Oswald was brought in. I believe Barrett is being honest when he says Westbrook asked him about Oswald/Hidell identifications inside a wallet. I just think Barrett is misremembering where it was that the brief conversation took place, i.e. inside Westbrook's office versus at Tenth & Patton. All of this is covered in "With Malice" by Dale Myers.
People always "misremember" things at Bill's convenience.
-
It is, isn't it? Are we to interpret your response as "Thinking logically is beneath me" or "I have no answers"?
Perhaps you can provide the "logic" behind ordering a gun using an alias, killing the president with it, and carrying around an ID that day with that very same name on it.
Or is it only CT scenarios that have to pass the Lance Payette "logic" test?
-
There was always only one Oswald wallet
BS:
Oswald’s 5 wallets
1. the arrest wallet, FBI Exhibit B-1, which Dallas police said Oswald had in his pants pocket when they arrested him.
2. a brown billfold, FBI Exhibit 114, found in the house of Ruth Paine.
3. a red billfold, FBI Exhibit 382, found in the house of Ruth Paine.
4. a black plastic billfold, found in the dresser drawer of Marina Oswald's bedroom at the Paine house with $170 in cash.
5. the Tippit murder scene wallet described by Dallas FBI agent, Bob Barrett and Dallas Police Sergeant Kenneth Croy and depicted in film footage taken that day by television station WFAA.
-
Gerald Hill told the Commission that two names were read from the wallet (by Bentley) while in the car on the way to headquarters.
Gerald Hill was interviewed on the day of the arrest and said, “The only way we found out what his name was, was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was.” Later in the interview a reporter asked, “What was the name on the billfold?” Hill replied, “Lee H. Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D”. No mention of Hidell. Why not?
-
BS:
Oswald’s 5 wallets
1. the arrest wallet, FBI Exhibit B-1, which Dallas police said Oswald had in his pants pocket when they arrested him.
2. a brown billfold, FBI Exhibit 114, found in the house of Ruth Paine.
3. a red billfold, FBI Exhibit 382, found in the house of Ruth Paine.
4. a black plastic billfold, found in the dresser drawer of Marina Oswald's bedroom at the Paine house with $170 in cash.
5. the Tippit murder scene wallet described by Dallas FBI agent, Bob Barrett and Dallas Police Sergeant Kenneth Croy and depicted in film footage taken that day by television station WFAA.
Thanks for reminding us about the other three :(
-
BS:
Oswald’s 5 wallets
1. the arrest wallet, FBI Exhibit B-1, which Dallas police said Oswald had in his pants pocket when they arrested him.
2. a brown billfold, FBI Exhibit 114, found in the house of Ruth Paine.
3. a red billfold, FBI Exhibit 382, found in the house of Ruth Paine.
4. a black plastic billfold, found in the dresser drawer of Marina Oswald's bedroom at the Paine house with $170 in cash.
5. the Tippit murder scene wallet described by Dallas FBI agent, Bob Barrett and Dallas Police Sergeant Kenneth Croy and depicted in film footage taken that day by television station WFAA.
1. Yes Oswald's wallet.
2. ...found in the house of Ruth Paine LOL! You can't make this up!
3. ...found in the house of Ruth Paine Double LOL!! You really can't make this up.!!
4. Marina's wallet.
5. What, the decades old memory of a wallet of a potential murderer that was never broadcast on the Police radio and was never recorded, that wallet?? Hahahaha!
Btw Iacoletti, next time try harder, MUCH harder.
JohnM
-
Gerald Hill was interviewed on the day of the arrest and said, “The only way we found out what his name was, was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was.” Later in the interview a reporter asked, “What was the name on the billfold?” Hill replied, “Lee H. Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D”. No mention of Hidell. Why not?
Because, the guy's name was in fact "Lee Harvey Oswald". Duh!
JohnM
-
Perhaps you can provide the "logic" behind ordering a gun using an alias, killing the president with it, and carrying around an ID that day with that very same name on it.
Or is it only CT scenarios that have to pass the Lance Payette "logic" test?
Gee, I'll try. This requires pretty heavy reasoning, but I'll give it a shot (pun!) ...
1. You order a rifle in March because (1) you're interested in guns and, (2) perhaps something like the Walker attempt is already a gleam in your eye.
Pretty logical so far, no?
2. When you make an almost spur-of-the-moment decision to shoot JFK in November, you choose to use the rifle you already own.
Still doing pretty well here, it seems to me - yes?
3. You are going to shoot from the sixth floor of your place of work, make no attempt to disguise yourself, leave your rifle with its serial number intact on the sixth floor, and have minimal likelihood of surviving anyway. You know there is already a paper trail establishing your purchase of the rifle, photos of you holding the rifle, and a wife and others who know of your ownership of the rifle. Ergo, whether you have a Hidell ID in your wallet is rather inconsequential. Indeed, the ID may even come in handy if the police are looking for one Lee Harvey Oswald from TSBD and you can produce an ID of Alek Hidell. If you are actually arrested for the murder of JFK or Tippit, the contents of your wallet are going to be the least of your problems.
Voila, our pristine chain of logic is complete - no?
Do not attempt to argue logic with the swami, especially if your reasoning does not extend beyond inane one-liners with which you flood the forum when "Martin" allows you out of the sock puppet closet.
The swami observes that Team Sock Puppet has still failed to provide anything resembling a rational and coherent explanation as to why a dark and sinister conspiracy-oriented theory of the Multi-Wallet Mystery makes any sense.
-
Gerald Hill was interviewed on the day of the arrest and said, “The only way we found out what his name was, was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was.” Later in the interview a reporter asked, “What was the name on the billfold?” Hill replied, “Lee H. Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D”. No mention of Hidell. Why not?
Oh, wow. these brain-twisters are so difficult that even the swami's head is aching, but he will give it another shot ...
1. Because Hill by this point knew the suspect's actual name was Oswald. Makes sense - no?
2. Because at this point the name Hidell was of no particular significance except as a fake ID in the wallet. Makes sense - no?
The sloppy Hill likewise failed to say "The wallet also contained photos of an unidentified woman and an infant wrapped in swaddling, which we believe may be additional disguises used by the suspect."
-
Gee, I'll try. This requires pretty heavy reasoning, but I'll give it a shot (pun!) ...
1. You order a rifle in March because (1) you're interested in guns and, (2) perhaps something like the Walker attempt is already a gleam in your eye.
Pretty logical so far, no?
2. When you make an almost spur-of-the-moment decision to shoot JFK in November, you choose to use the rifle you already own.
Still doing pretty well here, it seems to me - yes?
3. You are going to shoot from the sixth floor of your place of work, make no attempt to disguise yourself, leave your rifle with its serial number intact on the sixth floor, and have minimal likelihood of surviving anyway. You know there is already a paper trail establishing your purchase of the rifle, photos of you holding the rifle, and a wife and others who know of your ownership of the rifle. Ergo, whether you have a Hidell ID in your wallet is rather inconsequential. Indeed, the ID may even come in handy if the police are looking for one Lee Harvey Oswald from TSBD and you can produce an ID of Alek Hidell. If you are actually arrested for the murder of JFK or Tippit, the contents of your wallet are going to be the least of your problems.
Voila, our pristine chain of logic is complete - no?
Do not attempt to argue logic with the swami, especially if your reasoning does not extend beyond inane one-liners with which you flood the forum when "Martin" allows you out of the sock puppet closet.
The swami observes that Team Sock Puppet has still failed to provide anything resembling a rational and coherent explanation as to why a dark and sinister conspiracy-oriented theory of the Multi-Wallet Mystery makes any sense.
inane one-liners with which you flood the forum when "Martin" allows you out of the sock puppet closet.
I was living rent free in John Mytton's head. Did I somehow move to your head now? Talk about obsession!
-
I understand the meanings of "plausible" and "possible".
If I typed "plausible", it was intentional.
In what sense - other than "Well, it coulda happened" - is Oswald carrying two wallets or someone planting an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene "plausible"?
The Wikipedia entry on "Plausible Reasoning" is actually quite good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_reasoning) "Plausible reasoning proceeds from premises that are more plausible [or known] to a conclusion that was less plausible before the plausible argument." "Well, it coulda happened" is not the basis of a plausible inference.
Is there any foundation whatsoever for the speculation that Oswald was carrying two wallets? Is there any foundation whatsoever for someone having planted two wallets? Isn't the CT logic simply "There seems to be some confusion about a wallet [not necessarily an Oswald wallet at all] at the Tippit scene ... and, therefore, Oswald 'coulda' been carrying two wallets [which is of no help to CTers] or someone 'coulda' planted an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene."
The fact that the Tippit scene wallet was an Oswald wallet is not a known premise or even a "more plausible" premise. It is in fact an exceedingly weak premise based on dubious and long-after-the-fact claims. If we KNEW the wallet was Oswald's and another one was found on him at the Texas Theater, then either of your scenarios might indeed be plausible - but we don't. You are speculating from an unknown and calling the speculation plausible. Given the chaos and confusion of 11-22-63, by far the more plausible scenario is that a wallet was indeed examined at the Tippit scene, as we might well have expected given all the citizen involvement, but was simply not an Oswald wallet.
The two things CTers never seem to do is (1) consider all the other implausibilities required to sustain their CT-oriented speculation, and (2) explain what sense their speculation would have made in the context of the JFKA as a whole. This was the point of my goofy little attempt above. Perhaps take us through your "Oswald was carrying two wallets" and "an Oswald wallet was planted" scenarios and see if they still sound plausible. The scenario has to include all the police confusion as well - i.e., why they didn't simply say Oswald was carrying two wallets?
-
1. Yes Oswald's wallet.
2. ...found in the house of Ruth Paine LOL! You can't make this up!
3. ...found in the house of Ruth Paine Double LOL!! You really can't make this up.!!
4. Marina's wallet.
5. What, the decades old memory of a wallet of a potential murderer that was never broadcast on the Police radio and was never recorded, that wallet?? Hahahaha!
Btw Iacoletti, next time try harder, MUCH harder.
JohnM
a wallet of a potential murderer that was never broadcast on the Police radio
How could Westbrook know that the wallet Croy found belonged to a potential murderer?
and was never recorded, that wallet??
Just like the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car, which was never recorded in any contemporary report, right?
-
inane one-liners with which you flood the forum when "Martin" allows you out of the sock puppet closet.
I was living rent free in John Mytton's head. Did I somehow move to your head now? Talk about obsession!
You raise an interesting metaphysical question: Who is the "you" who is living rent-free inside anyone's head?
An obsession? No, more of a fascination with what the psychology of the Multiple Sock Puppet Game could possibly be.
If "you" are actually denying that "you" are the various sock puppets that have been associated with "you" - surely "you" are not, are "you"? - this elevates the psychological issue to a whole new level.
I am currently running numerous algorithms through my High-Speed Swami PC in hopes of developing and marketing Sock Puppet Identifer software.
My current hypothesis is that all CTers on this forum are in fact "you." Those who wish to dispute this hypothesis will be required to provide birth certificates, which they may do by private message.
-
You raise an interesting metaphysical question: Who is the "you" who is living rent-free inside anyone's head?
An obsession? No, more of a fascination with what the psychology of the Multiple Sock Puppet Game could possibly be.
If "you" are actually denying that "you" are the various sock puppets that have been associated with "you" - surely "you" are not, are "you"? - this elevates the psychological issue to a whole new level.
I am currently running numerous algorithms through my High-Speed Swami PC in hopes of developing and marketing Sock Puppet Identifer software.
My current hypothesis is that all CTers on this forum are in fact "you." Those who wish to dispute this hypothesis will be required to provide birth certificates, which they may do by private message.
You raise an interesting metaphysical question: Who is the "you" who is living rent-free inside anyone's head?
That's easy. I am the "you" that you, in your delusion, want me to be.
My current hypothesis is that all CTers on this forum are in fact "you."
Of course they are.... and a few LNs as well. Thumb1:
-
Of course they are.... and a few LNs as well. Thumb1:
You know what? That actually wouldn't surprise me.
Never have I seen anyone be so utterly exposed, make such a tap-dancing fool of himself, and yet make things even worse by persisting with the fraud. Ergo, I'm afraid I must continue to refer to "you" as Team Sock Puppet until "you" fess up and humbly acknowledge the error and absurdity of "your" ways, at which time I shall refer to "you" by whatever "your" last and final chosen moniker may be.
Is Team Sock Puppet perhaps part of Team Harvey & Lee as well? The "five wallets" nonsense seems to be almost unique to Team Harvey & Lee. Even genial Jim Hargrove of Team H&L, whom I actually respect for his dogged persistence, acknowledges essentially nothing is known about the two wallets ostensibly found at the Paine house, FBI Exhibits 114 and 382. Oswald actually had, I believe, two known wallets: The one taken from him at the Texas Theater and the one with cash found in Marina's room, which had been given to him by his mother and which he used to hold his cash savings. I see nothing even vaguely mysterious.
Since Conspiracy World posits the Big Boys planting virtually all evidence in the case, why didn't said Big Boys plant Oswald's actual "savings" wallet at the Tippit scene? In fact, now that I'm in charge of planning the conspiracy, I love it! Whoever came up with that idea, give yourself a gold star. Oswald will carry two different wallets, including the savings wallet because he "needs the cash for his escape," and will clumsily drop the savings wallet at the Tippit scene! Perfect - is it not, Team Sock Puppet?
-
You know what? That actually wouldn't surprise me.
Never have I seen anyone be so utterly exposed, make such a tap-dancing fool of himself, and yet make things even worse by persisting with the fraud. Ergo, I'm afraid I must continue to refer to "you" as Team Sock Puppet until "you" fess up and humbly acknowledge the error and absurdity of "your" ways, at which time I shall refer to "you" by whatever "your" last and final chosen moniker may be.
Is Team Sock Puppet perhaps part of Team Harvey & Lee as well? The "five wallets" nonsense seems to be almost unique to Team Harvey & Lee. Even genial Jim Hargrove of Team H&L, whom I actually respect for his dogged persistence, acknowledges essentially nothing is known about the two wallets ostensibly found at the Paine house, FBI Exhibits 114 and 382. Oswald actually had, I believe, two known wallets: The one taken from him at the Texas Theater and the one with cash found in Marina's room, which had been given to him by his mother and which he used to hold his cash savings. I see nothing even vaguely mysterious.
Since Conspiracy World posits the Big Boys planting virtually all evidence in the case, why didn't said Big Boys plant Oswald's actual "savings" wallet at the Tippit scene? In fact, now that I'm in charge of planning the conspiracy, I love it! Whoever came up with that idea, give yourself a gold star. Oswald will carry two different wallets, including the savings wallet because he "needs the cash for his escape," and will clumsily drop the savings wallet at the Tippit scene! Perfect - is it not, Team Sock Puppet?
You can tell a fool that he is a fool but he will never believe or accept it. :D
You know what? That actually wouldn't surprise me.
-
a wallet of a potential murderer that was never broadcast on the Police radio
How could Westbrook know that the wallet Croy found belonged to a potential murderer?
You're joking right? Hahaha!
A wallet dropped at the Tippit crime scene and you don't think that would be highly suspicious to a Policeman looking for clues, surely you jest?
JohnM
-
You raise an interesting metaphysical question: Who is the "you" who is living rent-free inside anyone's head?
That's easy. I am the "you" that you, in your delusion, want me to be.
My current hypothesis is that all CTers on this forum are in fact "you."
Of course they are.... and a few LNs as well. Thumb1:
What happened to Tom? LOLOL!
Everytime a sock puppet is exposed they just disappear, poof, into another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination.
JohnM
-
You can tell a fool that he is a fool but he will never believe or accept it. :D
May the record reflect, Your Honor, that the sock puppet known as "Tom Sorenson" has not appeared on the forum since the moment I outed "him" in my sock puppet thread.
His final post, directed at moi, was as follows:
This is basically about how badly you crave attention, and it's bad. As high as eight ramblings a day at one time, now roughly five. It's the ego thing, case closed.
"CASE CLOSED" INDEED, TEAM SOCK PUPPET.
The prosecution rests. But, hey, keep tap-dancing if it makes you happy, Martin & The Elves. We're laughing at you, not with you.
-
You're joking right? Hahaha!
A wallet dropped at the Tippit crime scene and you don't think that would be highly suspicious to a Policeman looking for clues, surely you jest?
JohnM
How did Westbrook know that the wallet was dropped and not just simply lost by a witness?
And since when does "highly suspicious" equal calling somebody a potential murderer?
You do understand that being suspicious isn't an actual crime, don't you? Oh wait, you probably do not understand that. Forget I asked.
-
What happened to Tom? LOLOL!
Everytime a sock puppet is exposed they just disappear, poof, into another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination.
JohnM
What happened to Tom? LOLOL!
You don't know what happened to your alter ego? Really?
Perhaps you should ask Vincent Baxter. He suddenly showed up (without posting) after three years after I mentioned him and connected him to you.
Everytime a sock puppet is exposed they just disappear, poof, into another dimension,
Yeah, you know all about that, don't you? And guess what, I'm still here.... Thumb1:
-
What happened to Tom? LOLOL!
You don't know what happened to your alter ego? Really?
Perhaps you should ask Vincent Baxter. He suddenly showed up (without posting) after three years after I mentioned him and connected him to you.
Everytime a sock puppet is exposed they just disappear, poof, into another dimension,
Yeah, you know all about that, don't you? And guess what, I'm still here.... Thumb1:
You've been caught and are now making irrational nonsensical statements. Hilarious.
Too bad that Vincent didn't just disappear but was online just before Lance exposed you and the last time that you mentioned Vincent Baxter before that was THREE years ago. Oops.
The more you try to squirm your way out of your lies, the deeper hole you dig.
JohnM
-
How did Westbrook know that the wallet was dropped and not just simply lost by a witness?
And since when does "highly suspicious" equal calling somebody a potential murderer?
You do understand that being suspicious isn't an actual crime, don't you? Oh wait, you probably do not understand that. Forget I asked.
Yeah, those silly witnesses are dropping their wallets at crime scenes, happens everyday.
JohnM
-
You've been caught and are now making irrational nonsensical statements. Hilarious.
Too bad that Vincent didn't just disappear but was online just before Lance exposed you and the last time that you mentioned Vincent Baxter before that was THREE years ago. Oops.
The more you try to squirm your way out of your lies, the deeper hole you dig.
JohnM
Well, I figured out three years ago that Vincent Baxter was your alter ego. That was the day he disappeared. Thumb1:
So, I had no reason to talk about him after that.
Besides, I don't care that an internet troll like you is hiding behind a fake name and is using other accounts.
The real question to answer is; why are you so easy to provoke? :D
Btw, the tag-team thing you've got going with Lance is rather amusing. Perhaps you should get another lap top so that you and Lance can post at the same time.
-
Yeah, those silly witnesses are dropping their wallets at crime scenes, happens everyday.
JohnM
Wow, dissent in the ranks... There have been plenty of LNs, like "Richard Smith" who claim to believe (they don't really ;)) that the wallet was dropped by a witness.
Your disagreement might just get you recalled to Langley!
But let me ask you this;
You seem to have accepted that in the television footage it shows Westbrook looking at a wallet.
So, if the wallet wasn't dropped by a witness, then who dropped it there?
-
Wow, dissent in the ranks... There have been plenty of LNs, like "Richard Smith" who claim to believe (they don't really ;)) that the wallet was dropped by a witness.
Your disagreement might just get you recalled to Langley!
But let me ask you this;
You seem to have accepted that in the television footage it shows Westbrook looking at a wallet.
So, if the wallet wasn't dropped by a witness, then who dropped it there?
1. Can you point to the post where Richard said the wallet was dropped by an witness because he said in this thread that finding a discarded wallet at the scene would be a "bizarre coincidence"? Richard has also speculated that it wasn't a wallet but was Tippit's notebook.
2. I analysed the footage in a post earlier in this thread and said the wallet was being given back to an eyewitness who obviously was not Hidell or Oswald.
JohnM
-
1. Can you point to the post where Richard said the wallet was dropped by an witness because he said in this thread that finding a discarded wallet at the scene would be a "bizarre coincidence"? Richard has also speculated that it wasn't a wallet but was Tippit's notebook.
2. I analysed the footage in a post earlier in this thread and said the wallet was being given back to an eyewitness who obviously was not Hidell or Oswald.
JohnM
So, you agree it was a wallet that Westbrook was looking at on 10th street? That's progress.
-
So, you agree it was a wallet that Westbrook was looking at on 10th street? That's progress.
In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun and without a care even has it aimed close to the hand of the detective who is pointing something out within the wallet and then when the cop hands over the wallet, he quickly points the gun away and more towards himself.
The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera and thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back, the cop responds correctly by diverting the aim of the gun and away from the direction of this civilian.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxPsgRHQ/Giving-wallet-back.gif)
BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.
JohnM
-
In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun and without a care even has it aimed close to the hand of the detective who is pointing something out within the wallet and then when the cop hands over the wallet, he quickly points the gun away and more towards himself.
The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera and thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back, the cop responds correctly by diverting the aim of the gun and away from the direction of this civilian.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxPsgRHQ/Giving-wallet-back.gif)
BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.
JohnM
In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun and without a care
Who cares where the cop is waving is gun? The point is that you agree that cop and Westbrook are looking at a wallet.
The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera
That's your "most likely scenario"? Really?
thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back,
And which civilian would that be?
But wait, didn't you just say that a witness dropping their wallets at a crime scenes is unlikely? Can you please make up your mind?
BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.
Wow, high praise from a guy who completely changed his mind when he got a job at the TSBD museum. It's also a pathetic appeal to authority!
If he really agreed with you, why do so in a PM instead of on the forum? Sounds dubious to me!
-
But wait, didn't you just say that a witness dropping their wallets at a crime scenes is unlikely?
Yes, a civilian randomly dropping their wallet at the scene of a crime is of course highly unlikely, but Police identifying eyewitnesses is part of their job.
JohnM
-
Oh, wow. these brain-twisters are so difficult that even the swami's head is aching, but he will give it another shot ...
1. Because Hill by this point knew the suspect's actual name was Oswald. Makes sense - no?
2. Because at this point the name Hidell was of no particular significance except as a fake ID in the wallet. Makes sense - no?
The sloppy Hill likewise failed to say "The wallet also contained photos of an unidentified woman and an infant wrapped in swaddling, which we believe may be additional disguises used by the suspect."
Lame nutter excuses made up on the fly, with absolutely no documented evidence.
...it is constant.
-
Gerald Hill was interviewed on the day of the arrest and said, “The only way we found out what his name was, was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was.” Later in the interview a reporter asked, “What was the name on the billfold?” Hill replied, “Lee H. Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D”. No mention of Hidell. Why not?
...and of course, where are the 5 bullets in his pocket?
-
Lame nutter excuses made up on the fly, with absolutely no documented evidence.
...it is constant.
Odd. Yet another poster who speaks only in weirdly snarly one-liners. HOW MANY sock puppets does "Martin" have??? Is it pure coincidence that these characters float in and out, never say anything substantive, and post only in Martin-speak? This is becoming genuinely fascinating.
Anyway, is it "lame" with "no evidence" to say the DPD were pretty certain the suspect was named Oswald by the time he was in custody and Hill spoke to the press? Is there a shred of evidence they ever thought his name was actually Hidell?
Is it "lame" with "no evidence" to say they had no reason at this point to believe the Hidell name was of particular significance or tied to the ordering of the rifle? Isn't to suggest they did precisely the sort of completely baseless speculation that is the lifeblood of CT world?
-
The Keystone cops like incompetence and disarray in the investigation is proof of a conspiracy. And Katzenbach's memo ordering and directing the scripted investigation is also proof of a conspiracy.
So, if the investigation was incompetent and confused and muddled that's proof of a conspiracy. But if the investigation is controlled/directed (by Katzenbach?) and scripted out that's proof of a conspiracy too. Up is down and down is up.
Katzenbach was Mr. Big? He directed/controlled the investigations? Over 60 years? Who believes Earl Warren or Hoover or followup investigations could be controlled by Katzenbach? And the news media? Katzenbach controlled them too?
Conspiracists have said LBJ controlled the investigation. No, it was Hoover. No, Dulles. No, Angleton. No, Katzenbach. Sixty years of this gibberish, of made up stuff. The Seymour Hersh account always comes to mind. He told Oliver Stone that the CIA killed JFK theory was nonsense, it didn't happen. What was Stone's response to Hersh? "I always knew you were CIA."
Anyway, here's the Katzenbach memo: Opening paragraph.
"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."
Full memo: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29
-
Because, the guy's name was in fact "Lee Harvey Oswald". Duh!
Duh! How would he be able to determine that from the wallet if it really contained both names?
Not surprised that this sailed right over your head though.
-
2. ...found in the house of Ruth Paine LOL! You can't make this up!
3. ...found in the house of Ruth Paine Double LOL!! You really can't make this up.!!
So I guess we get to LOL at everything else "found in the house of Ruth Paine" then. Well done, "Mytton".
-
Oh, wow. these brain-twisters are so difficult that even the swami's head is aching, but he will give it another shot ...
1. Because Hill by this point knew the suspect's actual name was Oswald. Makes sense - no?
Uh...no.
"The only way we found out what his name was, was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves".
Your arrogant sarcasm doesn't in fact make any of this nonsense "logical". It's a rather transparent defense mechanism.
-
Gee, I'll try. This requires pretty heavy reasoning, but I'll give it a shot (pun!) ...
1. You order a rifle in March because (1) you're interested in guns and, (2) perhaps something like the Walker attempt is already a gleam in your eye.
Pretty logical so far, no?
2. When you make an almost spur-of-the-moment decision to shoot JFK in November, you choose to use the rifle you already own.
Still doing pretty well here, it seems to me - yes?
3. You are going to shoot from the sixth floor of your place of work, make no attempt to disguise yourself, leave your rifle with its serial number intact on the sixth floor, and have minimal likelihood of surviving anyway. You know there is already a paper trail establishing your purchase of the rifle, photos of you holding the rifle, and a wife and others who know of your ownership of the rifle. Ergo, whether you have a Hidell ID in your wallet is rather inconsequential. Indeed, the ID may even come in handy if the police are looking for one Lee Harvey Oswald from TSBD and you can produce an ID of Alek Hidell. If you are actually arrested for the murder of JFK or Tippit, the contents of your wallet are going to be the least of your problems.
Voila, our pristine chain of logic is complete - no?
Well, two can play this special pleading game.
The logic behind the cops doing such a lousy job planting evidence and not keeping their stories straight is that they were incompetent.
-
Never have I seen anyone be so utterly exposed, make such a tap-dancing fool of himself, and yet make things even worse by persisting with the fraud.
Never have I seen anyone with such a textbook case of projection.
-
Who believes Earl Warren or Hoover or followup investigations could be controlled by Katzenbach? And the news media? Katzenbach controlled them too?
If only it were just Katzenbach.
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." - J. Edgar Hoover, 11/24/1963
Consequently, the WC started with a predetermined conclusion. The outline that Rankin presented in a January 11, 1964 memo had a section titled "Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy". This was before they took a single bit of testimony.
-
This is very simple. Any wallet found discarded at the scene of a police shooting would be suspicious and likely linked to the murder. Ironically, even CTers accept this by implication by suggesting it was planted exactly for that purpose. The police would immediately have radioed in the identity of any persons associated with such a wallet as a potential suspect. We know that didn't happen. That tells us what they were not looking at. Any wallet found at the scene. What exactly it is then narrows down to Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some witness. Of those two, it seems much more likely that they would look through it in that manner as Tippit's citation book. A witness likely just shows them their ID instead of handing it to the police to flip through. Does anyone know if and where Tippit's citation book for writing tickets was found or left? I assume it would still be in his car after his murder.
-
...they would look through it in that manner as Tippit's citation book"
:D...as opposed to the way they would look thru a wallet?
-
Duh! How would he be able to determine that from the wallet if it really contained both names?
Not surprised that this sailed right over your head though.
You can't possibly be this stupid, oh hang on, Hahahaha...
Oswald's wallet contents with Oswald's name;
1. Oswald's Selective service card
2. Oswald's Social Security card
3. Oswald's Department of Defence Identification
4. Oswald's Certificate of Services in Armed Forces of United States
5. Oswald's U.S. Forces Japanese Identification card
6. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba "New Orleans Chapter
7. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee
8. Oswald's Library card
9. Oswald's Local Board 114 Fort Worth
10. Oswald's VERY FAKE LOOKING Hidell I.D.
Do the Math! LOLOLOLO!
(https://i.postimg.cc/90DmhnSZ/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vv2YLFQT/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-2-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RS8zTL3/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-3-CE-1990.jpg)
JohnM
-
You can't possibly be this stupid, oh hang on, Hahahaha...
Oswald's wallet contents with Oswald's name;
1. Oswald's Selective service card
2. Oswald's Social Security card
3. Oswald's Department of Defence Identification
4. Oswald's Certificate of Services in Armed Forces of United States
5. Oswald's U.S. Forces Japanese Identification card
6. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba "New Orleans Chapter
7. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee
8. Oswald's Library card
9. Oswald's Local Board 114 Fort Worth
10. Oswald's VERY FAKE LOOKING Hidell I.D.
Do the Math! LOLOLOLO!
(https://i.postimg.cc/90DmhnSZ/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vv2YLFQT/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-2-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RS8zTL3/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-3-CE-1990.jpg)
JohnM
Who's list is that?
-
This is very simple. Any wallet found discarded at the scene of a police shooting would be suspicious and likely linked to the murder. Ironically, even CTers accept this by implication by suggesting it was planted exactly for that purpose. The police would immediately have radioed in the identity of any persons associated with such a wallet as a potential suspect. We know that didn't happen. That tells us what they were not looking at. Any wallet found at the scene. What exactly it is then narrows down to Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some witness. Of those two, it seems much more likely that they would look through it in that manner as Tippit's citation book. A witness likely just shows them their ID instead of handing it to the police to flip through. Does anyone know if and where Tippit's citation book for writing tickets was found or left? I assume it would still be in his car after his murder.
Any wallet found discarded at the scene of a police shooting would be suspicious and likely linked to the murder.
Of course, but would it be sufficient to jump to the conclusion that it must belong to the killer and not some bystander?
Ironically, even CTers accept this by implication by suggesting it was planted exactly for that purpose.
There is no implication. It is indeed possible that it was planted for that purpose.
The police would immediately have radioed in the identity of any persons associated with such a wallet as a potential suspect. We know that didn't happen. That tells us what they were not looking at. Any wallet found at the scene.
And there is the strawman. You have no idea what the police would have done!
What exactly it is then narrows down to Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some witness.
Too bad that the television crew who filmed it said it was a wallet and so did FBI agent Barrett and officer Croy, who found it.
Of those two, it seems much more likely that they would look through it in that manner as Tippit's citation book.
Speculation, proven wrong by witnesses saying it was a wallet
A witness likely just shows them their ID instead of handing it to the police to flip through.
Why would a witness show them their ID? The killer had left the scene. There is no purpose to ask for an ID of some bystander still at the scene.
-
You can't possibly be this stupid, oh hang on, Hahahaha...
Oswald's wallet contents with Oswald's name;
1. Oswald's Selective service card
2. Oswald's Social Security card
3. Oswald's Department of Defence Identification
4. Oswald's Certificate of Services in Armed Forces of United States
5. Oswald's U.S. Forces Japanese Identification card
6. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba "New Orleans Chapter
7. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee
8. Oswald's Library card
9. Oswald's Local Board 114 Fort Worth
10. Oswald's VERY FAKE LOOKING Hidell I.D.
Do the Math! LOLOLOLO!
JohnM
Oswald's wallet contents with Oswald's name;
And you know that's Oswald's wallet? How?
Btw is it the one Bentley took from him in the car or the one found at the Tippit scene?
-
If only it were just Katzenbach.
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." - J. Edgar Hoover, 11/24/1963
Consequently, the WC started with a predetermined conclusion. The outline that Rankin presented in a January 11, 1964 memo had a section titled "Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy". This was before they took a single bit of testimony.
Seriously, since day one ALL the evidence pointed to Oswald and the fact that no one was there to help Oswald escape and there was no evidence Oswald had any co-conspirators is proof that Oswald the Lone Nut simply acted alone. And guess what Iacoletti, in the 60+ years since, these facts are still the only evidence in this case! LOL!
Oswald's rifle.
Oswald's immediate flight from the scene of the crime.
Oswald while in flight, killed a Police Officer.
Oswald resisted arrest and tried to kill more Police with the same weapon linked to the Tippit crime scene.
Oswald's repeated lies while being interrogated.
Oswald's attempted assassination of General Walker.
Etc Etc...
JohnM
-
What happened to Tippit's citation book? If he didn't have one or it can be accounted for in some other way is the only way to eliminate it as the object being flipped through by the police. Otherwise it makes sense that the police would be holding it and looking through it in the way depicted to determine if perhaps Tippit wrote down anything that might assist them like the identity or the license plate of the last person he encountered.
-
What happened to Tippit's citation book? If he didn't have one or it can be accounted for in some other way is the only way to eliminate it as the object being flipped through by the police. Otherwise it makes sense that the police would be holding it and looking through it in the way depicted to determine if perhaps Tippit wrote down anything that might assist them like the identity or the license plate of the last person he encountered.
Does it also make sense that Tippit's citation book (if that's what it was) would be handed over to a civilian, as John Mytton suggests.
The most likely scenario imo is that the wallet was being looked at legitimately and also as a bit of a show for the TV camera and thus the cop is a bit flippant with the direction of his gun but when the civilian is given his wallet back, the cop responds correctly by diverting the aim of the gun and away from the direction of this civilian.
BTW, I posted this theory on the old Forum and Gary Mack who became a wise wizard, sent me a PM endorsing my theory.
JohnM
-
I'm just attempting to apply common sense to what is being shown. Why would a witness hand their wallet to the police who would flip through it like that? What exactly would he be looking for? Why wouldn't the officer just ask the witness to show him an ID whatever he is looking for in the wallet instead of trying to find it himself? At most, the police would want a name/address of a witness. Why not just ask them to identify themselves instead of taking their wallet and looking through it? If, however, it is Tippit's citation book, the officer would flip through it looking for any indication of who Tippit last encountered. A license plate number or name. That makes some sense.
What can be ruled out is that the police found a discarded wallet at the scene of the murder and never even bothered to radio the identity of a potential suspect. That makes absolutely no sense. But then it gets even worse. We are supposed to entertain the possibility that someone planted a wallet to link Oswald to the Tippit murder but then didn't anticipate that Oswald would have his real wallet upon arrest. Oops. And instead of doing the obvious thing in suppressing the wallet found on Oswald's person, they suppress the much more highly incriminatory wallet that they have taken the time and risk to plant at the crime scene. HA HA HA. Even the most dense and biased CT should be able to see the lunacy of that scenario.
I'm not saying that it is Tippit's citation book. Maybe the police did, for some inexplicable reason, flip through a witness wallet. We don't have enough information to reach a conclusion. The citation book just makes more sense of what is depicted until that possibility is eliminated. For example, by accounting for the citation book in some other manner. It seems odd that it is never mentioned. Even without the "wallet" story, it would make sense to look at Tippit's citation book to see what, if anything, he wrote for his last encounter that day.
-
I'm just attempting to apply common sense to what is being shown. Why would a witness hand their wallet to the police who would flip through it like that? What exactly would he be looking for? Why wouldn't the officer just ask the witness to show him an ID whatever he is looking for in the wallet instead of trying to find it himself? At most, the police would want a name/address of a witness. Why not just ask them to identify themselves instead of taking their wallet and looking through it? If, however, it is Tippit's citation book, the officer would flip through it looking for any indication of who Tippit last encountered. A license plate number or name. That makes some sense.
What can be ruled out is that the police found a discarded wallet at the scene of the murder and never even bothered to radio the identity of a potential suspect. That makes absolutely no sense. But then it gets even worse. We are supposed to entertain the possibility that someone planted a wallet to link Oswald to the Tippit murder but then didn't anticipate that Oswald would have his real wallet upon arrest. Oops. And instead of doing the obvious thing in suppressing the wallet found on Oswald's person, they suppress the much more highly incriminatory wallet that they have taken the time and risk to plant at the crime scene. HA HA HA. Even the most dense and biased CT should be able to see the lunacy of that scenario.
I'm not saying that it is Tippit's citation book. Maybe the police did, for some inexplicable reason, flip through a witness wallet. We don't have enough information to reach a conclusion. The citation book just makes more sense of what is depicted until that possibility is eliminated. For example, by accounting for the citation book in some other manner. It seems odd that it is never mentioned. Even without the "wallet" story, it would make sense to look at Tippit's citation book to see what, if anything, he wrote for his last encounter that day.
I'm just attempting to apply common sense to what is being shown.
No you don't, because common sense doesn't dismiss what witnesses said they saw.
Why would a witness hand their wallet to the police who would flip through it like that?
Exactly my point. Why would a witness even give his wallet to a police officer after the suspect has already left the scene? That alone destroys Mytton's little theory.
If, however, it is Tippit's citation book, the officer would flip through it looking for any indication of who Tippit last encountered. A license plate number or name. That makes some sense.
What doesn't make sense is why the uniformed police officer would give Tippit's citation book to a civilian, as is shown in the video footage?
What can be ruled out is that the police found a discarded wallet at the scene of the murder and never even bothered to radio the identity of a potential suspect. That makes absolutely no sense.
It only makes no sense to you because you don't like it. So much for common sense! Croy confirmed in writing that he found a wallet, Barrett said that Westbrook looked through a wallet and asked him about Hidell and Oswald, and the TV crew said it was a wallet which they believed belonged to Tippit, which we now know isn't correct. So, the only reason why you want to rule out that it was a wallet is because in your strawman opinion the police should have broadcast the name of a suspect at a time when they didn't even know that the person the wallet belonged to was in fact a suspect.
We are supposed to entertain the possibility that someone planted a wallet to link Oswald to the Tippit murder but then didn't anticipate that Oswald would have his real wallet upon arrest. Oops.
What makes you think that who ever planted the wallet (if that's what happened) did not anticipate that Oswald had a wallet on him? Perhaps what they did not anticipate on was that Bentley made it public knowledge that he took a wallet from Oswald before it could be disappeared? Plans sometimes do go wrong. The LNs are constantly telling us that Oswald expected to die at the TSBD, yet nothing happened and he walked out of the building without anybody paying attention to him!
I still find it amazing that, according to Bill Brown and Dale Myers, Bentley gave the wallet he had taken from Oswald to Lt Baker, who took it to Westbrook's office, and yet, we have Gus Rose, who was the first officer to talk to Oswald at the police station, testify that he was given a wallet by an unidentified person who said it was the suspect's wallet. Please make sense of that. How can a wallet be at two different places at the same time?
And instead of doing the obvious thing in suppressing the wallet found on Oswald's person, they suppress the much more highly incriminatory wallet that they have taken the time and risk to plant at the crime scene. HA HA HA.
How do you suppress a wallet, when that wallet having been taken from Oswald by Bentley is already public knowledge? And what makes you think they suppressed the more incriminatory wallet, when they could simply switch one by the other and let some unidentified officer give it to Gus Rose? Ever considered that possibillity?... I doubt it, because police officers would never do such a thing, right? :D
I'm not saying that it is Tippit's citation book. Maybe the police did, for some inexplicable reason, flip through a witness wallet. We don't have enough information to reach a conclusion.
But we do have enough information. There's TV footage showing the wallet being looked through by Westbrook, there is a TV crew that confirmed it was indeed a wallet, there's Croy who confirmed in writing that he found the wallet and there's Barrett who tells us that Westbrook asked him about Oswald and Hidell while looking through the wallet. The only thing we don't have is a time machine!
-
There is footage of the police officer holding an object that resembles a wallet in a poor-quality b&w film. It most certainly could be a small notebook or citation book for writing tickets. It is impossible to tell who the object is given. Myers suggests it is Capt. Westbrook and not a civilian. The only way to eliminate a citation book or notebook is to account for it. I have to believe that someone must have found and looke at Tippit's citation book for the reasons discussed. There are also significant problems with the discarded wallet story Croy claimed the wallet had multiple IDs - none of which were Oswald's - while Barrett contends it contained Oswald's ID. How can that be? Of course, neither of these individuals tells that story for decades. They don't mention possibly the second most incriminating piece of evidence in the entire case for decades? LOL.
-
There is footage of the police officer holding an object that resembles a wallet in a poor-quality b&w film. It most certainly could be a small notebook or citation book for writing tickets. It is impossible to tell who the object is given. Myers suggests it is Capt. Westbrook and not a civilian. The only way to eliminate a citation book or notebook is to account for it. I have to believe that someone must have found and looke at Tippit's citation book for the reasons discussed. There are also significant problems with the discarded wallet story Croy claimed the wallet had multiple IDs - none of which were Oswald's - while Barrett contends it contained Oswald's ID. How can that be? Of course, neither of these individuals tells that story for decades. They don't mention possibly the second most incriminating piece of evidence in the entire case for decades? LOL.
There is footage of the police officer holding an object that resembles a wallet in a poor-quality b&w film. It most certainly could be a small notebook or citation book for writing tickets.
You are not paying attention; a TV crew said it was a wallet, FBI agent Barrett said it was a wallet and Officer Croy confirmed in writing that he found a wallet.
It is impossible to tell who the object is given. Myers suggests it is Capt. Westbrook and not a civilian.
If it is Westbrook and not a civilian, then pray tell, who is the man next to the uniformed officer looking at the wallet?
The only way to eliminate a citation book or notebook is to account for it.
Why would a citation or notebook be eliminated? Just because you bring it up as a possibility? If you claim it is a citation book or notebook, then just prove it. The usual LN game "I'm right, unless proven wrong" is not working.
I have to believe that someone must have found and looke at Tippit's citation book for the reasons discussed
Of course, you have to believe that. You're an die hard LN. You don't have the luxery of looking at the evidence honestly. If you accept it was indeed a wallet containing Oswald and Hidell's ID, you also have to accept that the official narrative might not be true.
There are also significant problems with the discarded wallet story Croy claimed the wallet had multiple IDs - none of which were Oswald's -
Where exactly did Croy claim that?
while Barrett contends it contained Oswald's ID.
No. Barrett said that Westbrook was looking at the wallet, at the Tippit scene, when he was asked if he knew anybody by the name Oswald or Hidell.
How can that be? Of course, neither of these individuals tells that story for decades.
Lt Baker told Dale Myers in 1999 that Bentley gave him a wallet which he took to Westbrook's wallet and Myers and Bill Brown believe that.
There are no significant problems with the wallet story, there are just things you make up because you don't like the actual facts.
-
There is footage of the police officer holding an object that resembles a wallet in a poor-quality b&w film. It most certainly could be a small notebook or citation book for writing tickets. It is impossible to tell who the object is given. Myers suggests it is Capt. Westbrook and not a civilian. The only way to eliminate a citation book or notebook is to account for it. I have to believe that someone must have found and looke at Tippit's citation book for the reasons discussed. There are also significant problems with the discarded wallet story Croy claimed the wallet had multiple IDs - none of which were Oswald's - while Barrett contends it contained Oswald's ID. How can that be? Of course, neither of these individuals tells that story for decades. They don't mention possibly the second most incriminating piece of evidence in the entire case for decades? LOL.
Weidmann's two wallet shenanigans is the most stupid CT theory I have ever read, why manufacture and introduce a second wallet and then stupidly hide this powerful link to a man you're trying to set-up? Especially when it's customary for a man and in this case Oswald to have his wallet on his person, which funnily enough is EXACTLY what happened. It's just another CT wet dream because after 60+ years they have NOTHING besides distant decades old memories, it's actually quite pathetic!
Anyway, I looked into the wallet being Tippit's notebook and this is my conclusions.
1) I couldn't find any trace of Tippit's notebook in the archives. But I did find what the Dallas Police used as their inventory notebook.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xq9qDt6Y/Dallas-Police-inventory-notebook.jpg)
2) Also, I did find these Police Notebooks from roughly the same time period and in each case they are quite long and one is measured to be 9 inches.
(https://i.postimg.cc/y63nfxMf/vintage-police-notebook.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvXfCFFm/vintage-police-notebook-1966.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/59zX0QQW/vintage-police-notebook-9-inches.jpg)
3) While not conclusive, the object in the footage IMO is a bit small to be a notebook, and the white section within the object appears to be credit card sized. The object also seems to be flexible as it bends while being moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/28v92Gq9/Giving-wallet-back.gif)
4) This wallet from 1963 has the same configuration and as seen above, the suited man runs his finger across, which corresponds with the orientation of someone's I.D. within the wallet.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zX1VRDTb/1963-wallet-plastic-card-holder.jpg)
My theory based on the cops movements with the revolver as he has no worries about pointing the gun at the suited man's hand but very quickly withdraws it when giving back the wallet to a civilian. And also of note is that Callaway takes the revolver from the squad car and goes looking for Oswald and obviously when he returns his actions would need some serious explanation and I reckon he was asked for his ID and simply handed over his wallet which had his ID at the front of the plastic sleaves.
Mr. BALL. The pistol was out of the holster?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir; out of the holster, and it was unsnapped. It was on his right side. He was laying with the gun under him.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I picked the gun up and laid it on the hood of the squad car, and then someone put it in the front seat of the squad car. Then after I helped load Officer Tippit in the ambulance, I got the gun out of the car and told this cabdriver, I said, "You saw the guy didn't you?" He said, yes.
I said, "If he is going up Jefferson, he can't be very far. Let's see if we can find him." So I went with Scoggins in the taxicab,....
BTW, the fact that the name wasn't broadcast is further proof that there was no wallet that was dropped by a potential murderer at the scene. Any cop would come to the conclusion that a wallet would have been dropped by Tippit's killer as Tippit asked for the man to show his I.D.!
They don't mention possibly the second most incriminating piece of evidence in the entire case for decades? LOL.
It's all a wishful CT fantasy which doesn't even stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
JohnM
-
Weidmann's two wallet shenanigans is the most stupid CT theory I have ever read, why manufacture and introduce a second wallet and then stupidly hide this powerful link to a man you're trying to set-up? Especially when it's customary for a man and in this case Oswald to have his wallet on his person, which funnily enough is EXACTLY what happened. It's just another CT wet dream because after 60+ years they have NOTHING besides distant decades old memories, it's actually quite pathetic!
A "stupid CT" is one which lacks evidence or substance.
In this example, there are eye witness accounts, written corroboration, and film corroboration. There may be a reasonable and innocent explanation for the wallet discrepancies. But for now, we can't rule out nefarious theories at this point.
-
A "stupid CT" is one which lacks evidence or substance.
In this example, there are eye witness accounts, written corroboration, and film corroboration. There may be a reasonable and innocent explanation for the wallet discrepancies. But for now, we can't rule out nefarious theories at this point.
The evidence is decades old memories, the film as I explained is worthless and an alternate narrative has to make sense, and so far not one CT has come forward with a logical narrative that fits.
But let me try to figure this out for you, the conspirators somehow had E.S.P. that Oswald would have no alibi and be in the immediate vicinity, so they killed an innocent cop and dropped a wallet to link Oswald to the crime but the initial dumbass cops don't make the connection and for several decades kept the wallet discovery to themselves?? Even if I try and knowing all your facts, I still can't provide a decent narrative and I guess that's why the CT's keep their stupid theories to themselves!
JohnM
-
The evidence is decades old memories, the film as I explained is worthless and an alternate narrative has to make sense, and so far not one CT has come forward with a logical narrative that fits.
But let me try to figure this out for you, the conspirators somehow had E.S.P. that Oswald would have no alibi and be in the immediate vicinity, so they killed an innocent cop and dropped a wallet to link Oswald to the crime but the initial dumbass cops don't make the connection and for several decades kept the wallet discovery to themselves?? Even if I try and knowing all your facts, I still can't provide a decent narrative and I guess that's why the CT's keep their stupid theories to themselves!
JohnM
BS: another lame nutter excuse made up on the fly (they are everywhere)
The item was identified as the suspect's wallet by multiple officers and the news cast itself.
-
The item was identified as the suspect's wallet by multiple officers and the news cast itself.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
And that suspect's name was Oswald;
• the same Oswald that was positively identified by almost a dozen eyewitnesses.
• the same Oswald that was arrested with the revolver exclusively linked to the crime scene.
• the same Oswald that discarded his jacket near-by.
• the same Oswald that hid in a Theater
• the same Oswald that tried to kill more Police with the same revolver.
• the same Oswald that lied about his revolver purchase.
Oh, that Oswald! Thumb1:
Keep going Michael, with you as Oswald's defence attorney, Oswald would have fried! Hahahaha!
JohnM
-
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
And that suspect's name was Oswald;
• the same Oswald that was positively identified by almost a dozen eyewitnesses.
• the same Oswald that was arrested with the revolver exclusively linked to the crime scene.
• the same Oswald that discarded his jacket near-by.
• the same Oswald that hid in a Theater
• the same Oswald that tried to kill more Police with the same revolver.
• the same Oswald that lied about his revolver purchase.
Oh, that Oswald! Thumb1:
Keep going Michael, with you as Oswald's defence attorney, Oswald would have fried! Hahahaha!
JohnM
More nutter garbage.
Where are the bullets when he was searched in the car?
-
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
And that suspect's name was Oswald;
• the same Oswald that was positively identified by almost a dozen eyewitnesses.
JohnM
Put in front completely unfair and bias lineups
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
• the same Oswald that was arrested with the revolver exclusively linked to the crime scene.
JohnM
You struggle to prove that on these forums
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
• the same Oswald that discarded his jacket near-by.
JohnM
Like the revolver, you continue to struggle with the chain of custody.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
• the same Oswald that hid in a Theater
JohnM
Hiding where? - He sat in his seat.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
• the same Oswald that tried to kill more Police with the same revolver.
JohnM
The same revolver you struggle to find proper chain of custody.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
• the same Oswald that lied about his revolver purchase.
John
Another nutter dilemma. Originating paperwork has never been confirmed as his mail order.
-
More nutter garbage.
Where are the bullets when he was searched in the car?
Oswald was handcuffed, so they didn't need to give Oswald a full cavity search, they simply retrieved his wallet from his pocket!
Just give it up Michael because you are not very good at this, send in the next CT and hopefully he has half a brain!
JohnM
-
Put in front completely unfair and bias lineups
You struggle to prove that on these forums
Like the revolver, you continue to struggle with the chain of custody.
Hiding where? - He sat in his seat.
The same revolver you struggle to find proper chain of custody.
Another nutter dilemma. Originating paperwork has never been confirmed as his mail order.
Put in front completely unfair and bias lineups
So almost a dozen civilians would send an innocent man to certain death, seriously? Could you be tricked into giving false evidence?
Like the revolver, you continue to struggle with the chain of custody.
The same revolver you struggle to find proper chain of custody.
Unbelievable, just give it up Michael/Tom, your argument is worthless and has failed!
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Oswald ordered the revolver in the name of his alias, Alek Hidell.
(https://i.ibb.co/60ym4TYb/hidell-id.jpg)
Oswald's application for PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/fVxkVKP8/Oswald-po-box-2915-b.jpg)
Oswald ordered the revolver, to PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/5ggyhNDG/Hidell-Oswald-revolver-order.jpg)
Seaport sent the revolver to Oswald's PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/VYd488rY/oswaldrevolver-zps89dd53c7.jpg)
The shipping company was Railway Express, PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/ksTdj66X/Oswald-revolver-Railway-express.jpg)
In Oswald's possessions was a revolver holster.
(https://i.ibb.co/N6T6KbPB/gloves-holster-1026-Beckley-oswald-possessions-2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/xtcTD3v4/ce-144-holster.jpg)
Multiple eyewitnesses saw Oswald shake the revolver shells from the revolver.
When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis, Affidavit
The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
Mrs. Virginia Davis, Affidavit
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
The revolver shells recovered from the murder scene were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
(https://i.ibb.co/zTN9dfvp/ce-143-revolver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/208HQYMQ/ce-594-4xshells-tippit.jpg)
BTW, as I said, you are hopeless at this, try another hobby where you don't have to apply deductive reasoning. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Oswald was handcuffed, so they didn't need to give Oswald a full cavity search, they simply retrieved his wallet from his pocket!
Just give it up Michael because you are not very good at this, send in the next CT and hopefully he has half a brain!
JohnM
BS: You just make it up as you go--again !
You're not very good at this - where are the bullets, John?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53757723472_86ccd680a9_o.png)
-
So almost a dozen civilians would send an innocent man to certain death, seriously? Could you be tricked into giving false evidence?
Unbelievable, just give it up Michael/Tom, your argument is worthless and has failed!
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Oswald ordered the revolver in the name of his alias, Alek Hidell.
Oswald's application for PO Box 2915
Oswald ordered the revolver, to PO Box, 2915
Seaport sent the revolver to Oswald's PO Box, 2915
The shipping company was Railway Express, PO Box 2915
In Oswald's possessions was a revolver holster.
Multiple eyewitnesses saw Oswald shake the revolver shells from the revolver.
When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis, Affidavit
The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
Mrs. Virginia Davis, Affidavit
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
The revolver shells recovered from the murder scene were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
BTW, as I said, you are hopeless at this, try another hobby where you don't have to apply deductive reasoning. Thumb1:
JohnM
More unproven Nutter garbage.
As seen in previous postings, this one just makes it up on the fly.
-
BS: You just make it up as you go--again !
You're not very good at this - where are the bullets, John?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53757723472_86ccd680a9_o.png)
Big deal, no where does it say he was fully searched in the Police car, so you lied and in fact there is no indication of when the searches took place and it specifically says "he was allowed to keep nothing" therefore something was found.
BTW this is the same police force that planted the bullets on Oswald, LOL! but for some reason you apply Kook logic and come up with a Kooky conspiracy.
As I said your deductive reasoning skills are kaput, find a new hobby!
JohnM
-
Big deal, no where does it say he was fully searched in the Police car, so you lied and in fact there is no indication of when the searches took place and it specifically says "he was allowed to keep nothing" therefore something was found.
BTW this is the same police force that planted the bullets on Oswald, LOL! but for some reason you apply Kook logic and come up with a Kooky conspiracy.
As I said your deductive reasoning skills are kaput, find a new hobby!
JohnM
:D - lame
Emptied his pockets; yet found no bullets
-
More unproven Nutter garbage.
As seen in previous postings, this one just makes it up on the fly.
Huh, you got it ass backwards!
This is the evidence and your unproven allegations are just some Kooky fantasy.
Really Michael/Tom, this isn't for you, perhaps go fly a kite!
JohnM
-
Thumb1: Yet, there were no bullets in his pocket when searched.
Poor Mytton. He has to make stuff up.
-
Thumb1: Yet, there were no bullets in his pocket when searched.
Poor Mytton. He has to make stuff up.
Oswald was interrogated just after he arrived from 2:20 till about 4PM and then Boyd searched Oswald before the first line-up and found the five live shells. Are you saying that someone planted the shells on Oswald? LOL!
Mr. BALL. Before you went into the showup, did you search Oswald?
Mr. BOYD. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. And what did you find?
Mr. BOYD. I found five .38 shells, I believe it was five.
Mr. BALL. Live? Live shells?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with them?
Mr. BOYD. Well, I put them in an envelope and put them with the rest of the property up there to be turned in.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any mark on them?
Mr. BOYD. Let me see I can look and see.
Mr. BALL. I will show you Commission Exhibit 592 in an envelope, will you take a look at that--at the cartridges?
Mr. BOYD. Yes---I got my mark on them.
Mr. BALL. You have your mark on all five of them?
Mr. BOYD. I have my mark on the first three---yes, sir---I have my mark on all of them.
Mr. BALL. On all five of them?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You put those marks on there, did you?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Now, looking those cartridges over, can you tell me whether these five cartridges, which constitute Commission Exhibit 592, are the cartridges which you took from Oswald?
Mr. BOYD. Yes; they are.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxgCtYWJ/Five-38-Special-cartridges-found-in-the-pocket-of-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-after-his-arrest.jpg)
Elmer L Boyd sure looks like an Honest Cop.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rmLjK0Cn/Honest-Cop-Elmer-L-Boyd.jpg)
JohnM
-
Oswald was interrogated just after he arrived from 2:20 till about 4PM and then Boyd searched Oswald before the first line-up and found the five live shells. Are you saying that someone planted the shells on Oswald? LOL!
JohnM
John Mytton makes up excuses then casts lame straw man arguments. JR Malley, Paul Bentley, & Capt. Fritz.
Thumb1: No bullets in his pocket when arrested. Uh-Oh !
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4309.128.html)
-
T. L. Baker also said in his report that Boyd discovered the five shells, how deep does the Capasse/Sorenson's fantasy go?? Hahaha!
(https://i.postimg.cc/qBGrB2XF/T-L-Baker-Boyd-search-shells-Sims-bus-transfer.jpg)
JohnM
-
T. L. Baker also said in his report that Boyd discovered the five shells, how deep does the Capasse/Sorenson's fantasy go?? Hahaha!
JohnM
Thumb1: Yet, there were no bullets in his pocket when searched earlier.
Poor Mytton. He has to make stuff up.
-
John Mytton makes up excuses then casts lame straw man arguments. JR Malley, Paul Bentley, & Capt. Fritz.
Thumb1: No bullets in his pocket when arrested. Uh-Oh !
For a start learn what a strawman is before you embarrass yourself even further.
Anyway your post is unintentionally hilarious, Malley and Fritz weren't even there and show me where Paul Bentley says he gave a full body search of Oswald??
Hill says that Bentley while sitting sideways in the cramped backseat, just reached in Oswald's pocket and grabbed his Billfold and Hill was there and provided testimony! NO mention of a full body search of Oswald who was BTW not a threat and bound in handcuffs.
Mr. BELIN. Was he asked where he lived?
Mr. HILL. That was the second question that was asked the suspect, and he didn't answer it, either.
About the time I got through with the radio transmission, I asked Paul Bentley, "Why don't you see if he has any identification."
Paul was sitting sort of sideways in the seat, and with his right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect's left hip pocket and said, "Yes, he has a billfold," and took it out.
Mr. BELIN. Was he ever asked again where he lived, up to the time you got to the station?
Mr. HILL. No; I don't believe so, because when Bentley got the identification out, we had two different addresses. We had two different names, and the comment was made, "I guess we are going to have to wait until we get to the station to find out who he actually is."
After about the time Bentley reached in his pocket and got his billfold, the suspect made the statement, "I don't know why you are treating me like this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol in a movie."
Then there was a remark made something to the effect, "Yes, sir; you have done a lot more. You have killed a policeman."
And then the suspect made a remark similar to "Well, you fry for that," or something to that effect.
The first proper FULL search was by Boyd, read it and weep!
Mr. BALL. Before you went into the showup, did you search Oswald?
Mr. BOYD. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. And what did you find?
Mr. BOYD. I found five .38 shells, I believe it was five.
Mr. BALL. Live? Live shells?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with them?
Mr. BOYD. Well, I put them in an envelope and put them with the rest of the property up there to be turned in.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any mark on them?
Mr. BOYD. Let me see I can look and see.
Mr. BALL. I will show you Commission Exhibit 592 in an envelope, will you take a look at that--at the cartridges?
Mr. BOYD. Yes---I got my mark on them.
Mr. BALL. You have your mark on all five of them?
Mr. BOYD. I have my mark on the first three---yes, sir---I have my mark on all of them.
Mr. BALL. On all five of them?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You put those marks on there, did you?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Now, looking those cartridges over, can you tell me whether these five cartridges, which constitute Commission Exhibit 592, are the cartridges which you took from Oswald?
Mr. BOYD. Yes; they are.
So Michael, all you've got is some weak hearsay which doesn't say what you want and I keep presenting powerful solid evidence after solid evidence, like Hill and Boyd and Baker, real testimony and reports, whereas you got zero, zilch, nothing.
As I said you are not very good at this and you keep relying on crappy misinterpreted evidence and assumptions, while I give you the real stuff straight from the horses mouth!
PS you keep avoiding the obvious, why would the Dallas Police who you accuse of being heroes and villains in the same breath, plant bullets on a fully searched Oswald, your needlessly paranoid conspiracy narrative as usual has more holes than swiss cheese!
JohnM
-
Weidmann's two wallet shenanigans is the most stupid CT theory I have ever read, why manufacture and introduce a second wallet and then stupidly hide this powerful link to a man you're trying to set-up? Especially when it's customary for a man and in this case Oswald to have his wallet on his person, which funnily enough is EXACTLY what happened. It's just another CT wet dream because after 60+ years they have NOTHING besides distant decades old memories, it's actually quite pathetic!
Anyway, I looked into the wallet being Tippit's notebook and this is my conclusions.
1) I couldn't find any trace of Tippit's notebook in the archives. But I did find what the Dallas Police used as their inventory notebook.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xq9qDt6Y/Dallas-Police-inventory-notebook.jpg)
2) Also, I did find these Police Notebooks from roughly the same time period and in each case they are quite long and one is measured to be 9 inches.
(https://i.postimg.cc/y63nfxMf/vintage-police-notebook.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvXfCFFm/vintage-police-notebook-1966.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/59zX0QQW/vintage-police-notebook-9-inches.jpg)
3) While not conclusive, the object in the footage IMO is a bit small to be a notebook, and the white section within the object appears to be credit card sized. The object also seems to be flexible as it bends while being moved.
(https://i.postimg.cc/28v92Gq9/Giving-wallet-back.gif)
4) This wallet from 1963 has the same configuration and as seen above, the suited man runs his finger across, which corresponds with the orientation of someone's I.D. within the wallet.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zX1VRDTb/1963-wallet-plastic-card-holder.jpg)
My theory based on the cops movements with the revolver as he has no worries about pointing the gun at the suited man's hand but very quickly withdraws it when giving back the wallet to a civilian. And also of note is that Callaway takes the revolver from the squad car and goes looking for Oswald and obviously when he returns his actions would need some serious explanation and I reckon he was asked for his ID and simply handed over his wallet which had his ID at the front of the plastic sleaves.
Mr. BALL. The pistol was out of the holster?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir; out of the holster, and it was unsnapped. It was on his right side. He was laying with the gun under him.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I picked the gun up and laid it on the hood of the squad car, and then someone put it in the front seat of the squad car. Then after I helped load Officer Tippit in the ambulance, I got the gun out of the car and told this cabdriver, I said, "You saw the guy didn't you?" He said, yes.
I said, "If he is going up Jefferson, he can't be very far. Let's see if we can find him." So I went with Scoggins in the taxicab,....
BTW, the fact that the name wasn't broadcast is further proof that there was no wallet that was dropped by a potential murderer at the scene. Any cop would come to the conclusion that a wallet would have been dropped by Tippit's killer as Tippit asked for the man to show his I.D.!
It's all a wishful CT fantasy which doesn't even stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
JohnM
Weidmann's two wallet shenanigans is the most stupid CT theory I have ever read,
It is not my problem if it goes way over your head.
But thank you for confirming that in your opinion it isn't a notebook that we see in the footage.
BTW, the fact that the name wasn't broadcast is further proof that there was no wallet that was dropped by a potential murderer at the scene.
Sometimes I find it amazing and beyond belief what you consider to be "proof", when it is, of course, no such thing.
Any cop would come to the conclusion that a wallet would have been dropped by Tippit's killer as Tippit asked for the man to show his I.D.!
Really? ... In your modest opinion, of course, right?
-
The evidence is decades old memories, the film as I explained is worthless and an alternate narrative has to make sense, and so far not one CT has come forward with a logical narrative that fits.
But let me try to figure this out for you, the conspirators somehow had E.S.P. that Oswald would have no alibi and be in the immediate vicinity, so they killed an innocent cop and dropped a wallet to link Oswald to the crime but the initial dumbass cops don't make the connection and for several decades kept the wallet discovery to themselves?? Even if I try and knowing all your facts, I still can't provide a decent narrative and I guess that's why the CT's keep their stupid theories to themselves!
JohnM
No, on the same day the shooting happened, the TV crew confirmed it was a wallet that the officer was looking at.
The film is only worthless to you, because you don't like what it shows.
Barrett seems to have no memory problems in the interview.
But let me try to figure this out for you, the conspirators somehow had E.S.P. that Oswald would have no alibi and be in the immediate vicinity, so they killed an innocent cop and dropped a wallet to link Oswald to the crime but the initial dumbass cops don't make the connection and for several decades kept the wallet discovery to themselves?? Even if I try and knowing all your facts, I still can't provide a decent narrative and I guess that's why the CT's keep their stupid theories to themselves!
please never ever try to figure something out. You're not very good at it.
-
So almost a dozen civilians would send an innocent man to certain death, seriously? Could you be tricked into giving false evidence?
Unbelievable, just give it up Michael/Tom, your argument is worthless and has failed!
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Oswald ordered the revolver in the name of his alias, Alek Hidell.
(https://i.ibb.co/60ym4TYb/hidell-id.jpg)
Oswald's application for PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/fVxkVKP8/Oswald-po-box-2915-b.jpg)
Oswald ordered the revolver, to PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/5ggyhNDG/Hidell-Oswald-revolver-order.jpg)
Seaport sent the revolver to Oswald's PO Box, 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/VYd488rY/oswaldrevolver-zps89dd53c7.jpg)
The shipping company was Railway Express, PO Box 2915
(https://i.ibb.co/ksTdj66X/Oswald-revolver-Railway-express.jpg)
In Oswald's possessions was a revolver holster.
(https://i.ibb.co/N6T6KbPB/gloves-holster-1026-Beckley-oswald-possessions-2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/xtcTD3v4/ce-144-holster.jpg)
Multiple eyewitnesses saw Oswald shake the revolver shells from the revolver.
When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis, Affidavit
The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
Mrs. Virginia Davis, Affidavit
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
The revolver shells recovered from the murder scene were exclusively matched to Oswald's revolver.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
(https://i.ibb.co/zTN9dfvp/ce-143-revolver.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/208HQYMQ/ce-594-4xshells-tippit.jpg)
BTW, as I said, you are hopeless at this, try another hobby where you don't have to apply deductive reasoning. Thumb1:
JohnM
So almost a dozen civilians would send an innocent man to certain death, seriously? Could you be tricked into giving false evidence?
If you don't understand that everybody can be manipulated in some way, then you shouldn't be having this kind of conversation.
Do you seriously believe that it has never happened that an innocent man was jailed for life or even given the death penalty on the basis of unreliable witness testimony?
Ever heard of Rubin Carter?
-
This is very simple. Any wallet found discarded at the scene of a police shooting would be suspicious and likely linked to the murder. Ironically, even CTers accept this by implication by suggesting it was planted exactly for that purpose. The police would immediately have radioed in the identity of any persons associated with such a wallet as a potential suspect. We know that didn't happen. That tells us what they were not looking at. Any wallet found at the scene. What exactly it is then narrows down to Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some witness. Of those two, it seems much more likely that they would look through it in that manner as Tippit's citation book. A witness likely just shows them their ID instead of handing it to the police to flip through. Does anyone know if and where Tippit's citation book for writing tickets was found or left? I assume it would still be in his car after his murder.
Like "Richard" knows what the police would "immediately do" or what is "likely".
-
The contrarian mind is quite amusing. Here it is suggested that Nostradamus-like vision is necessary to suggest what the police would have done following the discovery of a discarded wallet at the scene of a police officer shooting. HA HA HA. A discarded wallet at the scene of a cop murder on the street would be highly suspicious. The police would have every reason to suspect that the owner of the wallet was connected to the crime absent an amazing coincidence that some innocent person had lost their wallet that day at the very scene of the crime and no one else had bothered to pick it up. It had just laid there in in the open until the crime was committed. Ironically, the CTer theory that the wallet was planted to frame Oswald is entirely consistent with the conclusion that the police would have cause to believe the wallet's owner was connected to the crime. And what would the police do upon discovering the identity of a potential cop killing suspect? We don't need Sherlock Holmes or ESP. The police would immediately have radioed out the name and description of a potentially dangerous killer on the loose. That didn't happen. That sinks the battleship of loony contrarians.
-
You can't possibly be this stupid, oh hang on, Hahahaha...
Apparently Gus Rose was possibly that stupid then.
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out."
Oswald's wallet contents with Oswald's name;
1. Oswald's Selective service card
2. Oswald's Social Security card
3. Oswald's Department of Defence Identification
4. Oswald's Certificate of Services in Armed Forces of United States
5. Oswald's U.S. Forces Japanese Identification card
6. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba "New Orleans Chapter
7. Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee
8. Oswald's Library card
9. Oswald's Local Board 114 Fort Worth
10. Oswald's VERY FAKE LOOKING Hidell I.D.
Do the Math! LOLOLOLO!
Cool story, bro. But I'm more interested in the "Oswald's wallet" that Rose looked at and the "Oswald's wallet" that Bentley looked at.
"I asked for his name. He refused to give me his name. I removed his wallet from his back pocket and obtained his identification, and also asked him if he was still living at the Elsberry address and he says, well you find out for yourself."
"What kind of identification did he have?"
"The card that I got this information from was the Dallas Public Library Card. He had other identifications such as driver's license, I believe and credit cards and things like that."
-
Seriously, since day one ALL the evidence pointed to Oswald
LOL.
Oswald's rifle.
Oswald's immediate flight from the scene of the crime.
Oswald while in flight, killed a Police Officer.
Oswald resisted arrest and tried to kill more Police with the same weapon linked to the Tippit crime scene.
Oswald's repeated lies while being interrogated.
Oswald's attempted assassination of General Walker.
Claims aren't evidence. Next?
-
I'm not saying that it is Tippit's citation book. Maybe the police did, for some inexplicable reason, flip through a witness wallet. We don't have enough information to reach a conclusion.
Oh, please. You are the king of reaching conclusions without enough information. Why stop now?
-
So almost a dozen civilians would send an innocent man to certain death, seriously? Could you be tricked into giving false evidence?
People are easily manipulated by authority figures. Look at yourself, for example.
P.S. "almost a dozen". LOL.
McDonald took the revolver from Oswald.
McDonald gave the revolver to Carroll.
Carroll gave the revolver to Hill.
Hill kept the revolver on his person till he put his name on it.
Cool story, bro. Is that supposed to be a documented and controlled chain of custody?
-
Elmer L Boyd sure looks like an Honest Cop.
Well, I guess that settles it!
(https://media.tenor.com/xqqt8hs2pAcAAAAj/roflmao-laughing-my-ass-off.gif)
-
The contrarian mind is quite amusing. Here it is suggested that Nostradamus-like vision is necessary to suggest what the police would have done following the discovery of a discarded wallet at the scene of a police officer shooting. HA HA HA. A discarded wallet at the scene of a cop murder on the street would be highly suspicious. The police would have every reason to suspect that the owner of the wallet was connected to the crime absent an amazing coincidence that some innocent person had lost their wallet that day at the very scene of the crime and no one else had bothered to pick it up. It had just laid there in in the open until the crime was committed. Ironically, the CTer theory that the wallet was planted to frame Oswald is entirely consistent with the conclusion that the police would have cause to believe the wallet's owner was connected to the crime. And what would the police do upon discovering the identity of a potential cop killing suspect? We don't need Sherlock Holmes or ESP. The police would immediately have radioed out the name and description of a potentially dangerous killer on the loose. That didn't happen. That sinks the battleship of loony contrarians.
What is quite amusing (and frankly, sad) is your inability to distinguish fantasy from reality.
-
Apparently Gus Rose was possibly that stupid then.
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out."
Cool story, bro. But I'm more interested in the "Oswald's wallet" that Rose looked at and the "Oswald's wallet" that Bentley looked at.
"I asked for his name. He refused to give me his name. I removed his wallet from his back pocket and obtained his identification, and also asked him if he was still living at the Elsberry address and he says, well you find out for yourself."
"What kind of identification did he have?"
"The card that I got this information from was the Dallas Public Library Card. He had other identifications such as driver's license, I believe and credit cards and things like that."
Apparently Gus Rose was possibly that stupid then.
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out."
Context is everything!
Your selective quoting of Rose is a typical CT tactic, here's the entire relevant quote where Oswald says his name is "Hidell", which for a start makes your conspiracy theory that Oswald never knew about the alias "Hidell" seriously flawed. LOL
So with the fact that Oswald admitted to the Hidell alias, there is really no need to continue because the only reason you are questioning the wallet is the Hidell ID which was provably in the Wallet and was connected to Oswald because Oswald himself admitted to "Hidell" LOL
Now to put the FULL Rose quote into context, Oswald said his name was Hidell and Rose had not seen the wallet by that time so Rose checked Oswald's wallet and found the Oswald I.D.'s and wanted to know why Oswald was telling lies, nothing out of the ordinary for Oswald, who lied as often as he breathed.
Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. He didn't tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out." And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. BALL. Now, when he first came in there--you said that he said his name was "Hidell"?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before you saw the two cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. Did he give you his first name?
Mr. ROSE. He just said "Hidell"; I remember he just gave me the last name of "Hidell".
Cool story, bro. But I'm more interested in the "Oswald's wallet" that Rose looked at and the "Oswald's wallet" that Bentley looked at.
"I asked for his name. He refused to give me his name. I removed his wallet from his back pocket and obtained his identification, and also asked him if he was still living at the Elsberry address and he says, well you find out for yourself."
"What kind of identification did he have?"
"The card that I got this information from was the Dallas Public Library Card. He had other identifications such as driver's license, I believe and credit cards and things like that."
I don't tell stories, I tell facts!
Rose doesn't contradict any wallet fact.
Bentley says he saw the library card which had Oswald's name on it, which is a fact and then Bentley adds an "I believe" to the driver's licence I.D. and then mentions a generic list of wallet contents which we know couldn't be true because we know Oswald didn't have a driver's licence and the likely hood of Oswald owning a credit card was zero! Doh!
The following list of Oswald's wallets contents makes perfect sense, Oswald admitted to Rose about the name "Hidell" and the rest are what you expect Oswald to be carrying, military ID, pictures of his wife and child, social security card etc.
So getting back to your original mistake, Hill said Oswald was his name because the besides the FAKE looking Hidell ID, the overwhelming majority of Oswald's ID's said he was Oswald and funnily enough Oswald's name was in fact Oswald, how about that! LOL
(https://i.postimg.cc/90DmhnSZ/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vv2YLFQT/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-2-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RS8zTL3/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-3-CE-1990.jpg)
JohnM
-
Context is everything!
(https://i.postimg.cc/90DmhnSZ/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vv2YLFQT/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-2-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RS8zTL3/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-3-CE-1990.jpg)
JohnM
Who's list is that?
-
Who's list is that?
Seriously, where does this question go?
What part of the list do you believe to be fabricated because all the stuff like military cards, social security, family pictures, the Hidell ID was ALL positively linked to Oswald and more importantly why would anything need to be manufactured and placed in the wallet, how does this question of yours further your conspiracy belief?
If your concern is the Hidell ID then forget it because the Hidell ID was forensically analysed to be signed by Oswald, the template of the fake ID was found in Oswald's possessions and as seen above Oswald admitted to Rose that his "name" was Hidell.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3VbnHF7/hidell-id.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJwLfSHH/Cadigan-ex-20-osw-ald-hidell-id.jpg)
JohnM
-
Elmer L Boyd sure looks like an Honest Cop.
Well, I guess that settles it!
(https://media.tenor.com/xqqt8hs2pAcAAAAj/roflmao-laughing-my-ass-off.gif)
I am glad you found my clever sarcasm amusing, but my observation goes deeper than mere face value, pun intended.
Ct's like yourself and Capasse always take everything at "face value" and never explore how your latest piece of isolated "conspiratorial" evidence fits into the structure of your conspiracy. Capasse is on record as saying that he doesn't need an alternate narrative because obviously that just gets in the way of his allegations but an endless list of unconnected theories that contradict each other, doesn't lead to a conspiracy solution and the fact that he realizes that he can't connect his dots to provide a plausible conspiracy orientated narrative is proof alone that he's on the wrong track!
JohnM
-
Damn nice work, John. Take it easy on them. Let them come up for some air. The poor fellas. I'm beginning to feel bad for them.
-
By the way, stating as a fact that the wallet must include a driver's license just because Bentley was listing simple generic terms for items often found inside a wallet (early reports which are often wrong) must mean one also believes a secret service agent was killed in Dealey Plaza (early reports) and that a cop was killed inside the theater (early reports).
-
Seriously, where does this question go?
What part of the list do you believe to be fabricated because all the stuff like military cards, social security, family pictures, the Hidell ID was ALL positively linked to Oswald and more importantly why would anything need to be manufactured and placed in the wallet, how does this question of yours further your conspiracy belief?
If your concern is the Hidell ID then forget it because the Hidell ID was forensically analysed to be signed by Oswald, the template of the fake ID was found in Oswald's possessions and as seen above Oswald admitted to Rose that his "name" was Hidell.
JohnM
Different officers had different lists. Which incomplete one have you posted?
Or are YOU the fake?
-
Damn nice work, John. Take it easy on them. Let them come up for some air. The poor fellas. I'm beginning to feel bad for them.
:D - handing out "suckers" when they think they won something.
-
By the way, stating as a fact that the wallet must include a driver's license just because Bentley was listing simple generic terms for items often found inside a wallet (early reports which are often wrong) must mean one also believes a secret service agent was killed in Dealey Plaza (early reports) and that a cop was killed inside the theater (early reports).
"...must mean one also believes..."
typical nutter garbage; don't expect much more.
-
Different officers had different lists. Which incomplete one have you posted?
Or are YOU the fake?
Yawn, are you this boring in real life?
Oswald had a wallet with his stuff in it and your meaningless drivel adds not one iota to this case, therefore no one cares about your insignificant differences! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Damn nice work, John. Take it easy on them. Let them come up for some air. The poor fellas. I'm beginning to feel bad for them.
Thanks Bill, your outstanding work on the Tippit case is a solid structure to work from!
These CT's have nothing new to say and keep regurgitating the same old nonsense and are thus very easy to humiliate. They like to gang up on a LNer and I hate Bully's so I especially enjoy whooping their asses and sending them crying home to Mummy! :D
JohnM
-
Oswald must have been a schizophrenic to have stated his name was Hidell when his wallet also contained an Oswald ID.
Was Oswald also as retarded as Forest Gump?
Since there was no attorney present, no court appointed stenographer to make an official transcript, No tape recording and no camera recording of these alleged statements by Oswald, then ito accept theses statements requires faith in the prosecution directed authorities account of what Oswald said.
Sorry, but after experiencing the last 40 years of government officials blatantly lie about just about everything, I have to remain very skeptical about reports that claim Oswald made self incriminating statements.
I’ve already made a list of the many stupid things that Oswald would have to say and do, for the WC theory to be correct. It defies probability that a reasonably intelligent person would preplan to incriminated himself at every step beginning with ordering an MC rifle with fake ID but then having the rifle sent to his own real name P.O. Box.
The conventional 2 options:
1. CT conviction that Oswald was totally innocent of shooting at JFK (and Tippit possibly) and was completely set up by conspirator(s) before the fact and/or that there was some framing after the fact , by government authority directed to avoid a conspiracy conclusion.
2. LN conviction is that Oswald was totally guilty of shooting Walker, JFK/JC and Tippit and that Oswald was an isolated lunatic without any influence or manipulation by any other person.
The only alternatives I can imagine that are somewhere between CT and LN are:
A. Oswald was manipulated by conspirator(s) who knew he was schizophrenic, or had other mental issues after suspecting that Oswald took a shot at Walker. Oswalds MC rifle was preplanted on the 6th floor of TSBD. A conspirator shooter used a better quality rifle with center mounted large scope. This conspirator was momentarily seen at the SE window by Arnold Rowland. Oswald shot Tippit in a state of paranoia after realizing the MC rifle sold by Oswald, to the conspirator shooter , was probably used to kill JFK.
B. Oswald overestimated his intellect and devised what he thought was an ingenious plan to kill JFK to make it look like the government was framing Oswald. Oswald’s hope was that he could enjoy a televised public trial and he would get exonerated , thus acquiring fame and possible fortune.
-
Yawn, are you this boring in real life?
Oswald had a wallet with his stuff in it and your meaningless drivel adds not one iota to this case, therefore no one cares about your insignificant differences! Thumb1:
JohnM
Thumb1: You post garbage you refuse to verify
-
Thanks Bill, your outstanding work on the Tippit case is a solid structure to work from!
These CT's have nothing new to say and keep regurgitating the same old nonsense and are thus very easy to humiliate. They like to gang up on a LNer and I hate Bully's so I especially enjoy whooping their asses and sending them crying home to Mummy! :D
JohnM
:D Mytton continues to post garbage along with documents he refuses to verify.
Poor Mytton. Did the bad CT be-widdle you because you make stuff up. Whaaa--- !
-
Thumb1: You post garbage you refuse to verify
Geez Louise, you're the very definition of a Troll, for almost the last 50+ posts you just post the most vile aggressive one liners which add absolutely nothing, are you incapable of posting anything with substance? Why are you here?
BTW, it's hilarious that when Tom was exposed and left, you know Tom your twin Administrator at that pathetic JFK Forum which pushes page after page of misinformation, that you suddenly restarted posting here with the EXACT same mean spirited one liners, it's as if you were tag team partners and when one is down and out, the other springs into action?? Some coincidence, eh!
(https://media.tenor.com/VvVQPbsujfIAAAAM/tag-team.gif)
JohnM
-
Geez Louise, you're the very definition of a Troll, for almost the last 50+ posts you just post the most vile aggressive one liners which add absolutely nothing, are you incapable of posting anything with substance? Why are you here?
BTW, it's hilarious that when Tom was exposed and left, you know Tom your twin Administrator at that pathetic JFK Forum which pushes page after page of misinformation, that you suddenly restarted posting here with the EXACT same mean spirited one liners, it's as if you were tag team partners and when one is down and out, the other springs into action?? Some coincidence, eh!
Blah Blah Blah !
Legitimate researchers post sources for documents.
phony trolls like Mytton do not.
-
Blah Blah Blah !
Legitimate researchers post sources for documents.
phony trolls like Mytton do not.
A "legitimate researcher" would have just posted his research as a reply to my very first post, instead of complaining for half a dozen posts in a row, what does that achieve, is this a game to you?
BTW, the reason I never responded to your endless insults is because the source was obviously in the image name, and any "legitimate researcher" such as yourself would have seen it when responding to my posts and considering you replied twice to those images, you show your true capability of doing "legitimate research"! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
A "legitimate researcher" would have just posted his research as a reply to my very first post, instead of complaining for half a dozen posts in a row, what does that achieve, is this a game to you?
BTW, the reason I never responded to your endless insults is because the source was obviously in the image name, and any "legitimate researcher" such as yourself would have seen it when responding to my posts and considering you replied twice to those images, you show your true capability of doing "legitimate research"! Thumb1:
JohnM
Without a source, the document you posted is just phony garbage.
-
Simple question that you refuse to answer; Which officer is the source of this list?
(https://i.postimg.cc/90DmhnSZ/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vv2YLFQT/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-2-CE-1990.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RS8zTL3/Osw-ald-wallet-contents-3-CE-1990.jpg)
JohnM
-
Geez Louise, you're the very definition of a Troll, for almost the last 50+ posts you just post the most vile aggressive one liners which add absolutely nothing, are you incapable of posting anything with substance? Why are you here?
BTW, it's hilarious that when Tom was exposed and left, you know Tom your twin Administrator at that pathetic JFK Forum which pushes page after page of misinformation, that you suddenly restarted posting here with the EXACT same mean spirited one liners, it's as if you were tag team partners and when one is down and out, the other springs into action?? Some coincidence, eh!
(https://media.tenor.com/VvVQPbsujfIAAAAM/tag-team.gif)
JohnM
BTW, it's hilarious that when Tom was exposed and left, you know Tom your twin Administrator at that pathetic JFK Forum which pushes page after page of misinformation, that you suddenly restarted posting here with the EXACT same mean spirited one liners, it's as if you were tag team partners and when one is down and out, the other springs into action?? Some coincidence, eh!
Duncan has just shown you and your puppets just what he thinks of your BS by deleting a number of your crappy posts, but being the compulsive freak that you are, you just can't let it go, can you now?
-
BTW, it's hilarious that when Tom was exposed and left, you know Tom your twin Administrator at that pathetic JFK Forum which pushes page after page of misinformation, that you suddenly restarted posting here with the EXACT same mean spirited one liners, it's as if you were tag team partners and when one is down and out, the other springs into action?? Some coincidence, eh!
Duncan has just shown you and your puppets just what he thinks of your BS by deleting a number of your crappy posts, but being the compulsive freak that you are, you just can't let it go, can you now?
Well, not exactly. I understood from the links Duncan sent me privately that he accepts the Michael character as a real individual; at least that's how I interpreted the links. I stand by my research. I don't know exactly what game is being played, but a game is definitely being played that is inconsistent with honest discussion at an honest forum.
What sort of individual(s) find(s) it a worthwhile and productive use of time to post virtually nothing but snarky, non-substantive one-liners on an obscure JFKA forum would certainly make for an interesting psychological study.
-
Well, not exactly. I understood from the links Duncan sent me privately that he accepts the Michael character as a real individual; at least that's how I interpreted the links. I stand by my research. I don't know exactly what game is being played, but a game is definitely being played that is inconsistent with honest discussion at an honest forum.
What sort of individual(s) find(s) it a worthwhile and productive use of time to post virtually nothing but snarky, non-substantive one-liners on an obscure JFKA forum would certainly make for an interesting psychological study.
but a game is definitely being played that is inconsistent with honest discussion at an honest forum.
You should know, as you are one of the individuals playing it and you seem to be determined to keep on playing it. Says it all, really!
-
but a game is definitely being played that is inconsistent with honest discussion at an honest forum.
You should know, as you are one of the individuals playing it and you seem to be determined to keep on playing it. Says it all, really!
I note that the JFK Boards, which purport to have been in existence nearly 7 years, have - wait for it - 11 members! Michael Capasse, assuming he exists, and Tom Sorensen, assuming he exists and is a separate individual, appear to do the vast majority of the posting. Yet both Michael and Tom show up here from time to time in support of Martin (assuming he exists and is a separate individual) with weirdly snarky one-liners and the occasional Thumb1: in support of Martin's posts. Odd, but I'll let it go since I am relegating all three to the realm of non-existence insofar as I'm concerned.
I'm reminded of Thoreau's quote after his publisher required him to take back 706 unsold copies of A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers: "I now have a library of nearly 900 volumes, more than 700 of which I wrote myself." Perhaps the Administrator(s) of JFK Boards can similarly say, "I now have a forum with 11 members, 8 of which are me!"
-
I note that the JFK Boards, which purport to have been in existence nearly 7 years, have - wait for it - 11 members! Michael Capasse, assuming he exists, and Tom Sorensen, assuming he exists and is a separate individual, appear to do the vast majority of the posting. Yet both Michael and Tom show up here from time to time in support of Martin (assuming he exists and is a separate individual) with weirdly snarky one-liners and the occasional Thumb1: in support of Martin's posts. Odd, but I'll let it go since I am relegating all three to the realm of non-existence insofar as I'm concerned.
I'm reminded of Thoreau's quote after his publisher required him to take back 706 unsold copies of A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers: "I now have a library of nearly 900 volumes, more than 700 of which I wrote myself." Perhaps the Administrator(s) of JFK Boards can similarly say, "I now have a forum with 11 members, 8 of which are me!"
I am relegating all three to the realm of non-existence insofar as I'm concerned.
Thumb1:
-
To summarize:
1) Planted wallet - Problem: It makes no sense to go to the time and risk of planting a wallet at the crime to then suppress that highly incriminating piece of evidence. The conspirators would certainly have anticipated that Oswald would have his own wallet on him upon arrest.
2) Wallet of the shooter dropped at the scene. Problem: The police would have immediately radioed out the name and description of the wallet's owner as a potential murder suspect. Didn't happen.
3) Discarded wallet having nothing to do with the crime - Problem: A coincidence that seems highly improbable.
4) Witness wallet - Problem: it would be odd for the police to take the wallet of some bystander and look through it in that manner. Why not just ask for an ID or whatever they are looking for?
5) Tippit citation book or small note pad - this would explain why the police are examining it in the manner depicted and didn't call out the name of a suspect. If it contained no relevant information, it goes unmentioned. All the stars align.
-
To summarize:
1) Planted wallet - Problem: It makes no sense to go to the time and risk of planting a wallet at the crime to then suppress that highly incriminating piece of evidence. The conspirators would certainly have anticipated that Oswald would have his own wallet on him upon arrest.
2) Wallet of the shooter dropped at the scene. Problem: The police would have immediately radioed out the name and description of the wallet's owner as a potential murder suspect. Didn't happen.
3) Discarded wallet having nothing to do with the crime - Problem: A coincidence that seems highly improbable.
4) Witness wallet - Problem: it would be odd for the police to take the wallet of some bystander and look through it in that manner. Why not just ask for an ID or whatever they are looking for?
5) Tippit citation book or small note pad - this would explain why the police are examining it in the manner depicted and didn't call out the name of a suspect. If it contained no relevant information, it goes unmentioned. All the stars align.
Your buddy "John Mytton" has already proven you wrong about the citation book.
Too bad your straw man arguments are simply not credible either.
You must be getting desperate by now!
-
LOL. If "Martin" from "Europe" who doesn't understand the metric system wants to prove me wrong, how about addressing the significant problems noted with the individual possibilities? Or perhaps account what happened to Tippit's citation book?
-
LOL. If "Martin" from "Europe" who doesn't understand the metric system wants to prove me wrong, how about addressing the significant problems noted with the individual possibilities? Or perhaps account what happened to Tippit's citation book?
You mean the "significant problems" you have created but don't really exist?
It doesn't matter what you say to the stubborn man who thinks he's always right but hardly ever is.
-
LOL. If "Martin" from "Europe" who doesn't understand the metric system wants to prove me wrong, how about addressing the significant problems noted with the individual possibilities? Or perhaps account what happened to Tippit's citation book?
Because the dopey possibilities only exist in our head.
... prove me wrong..
:D You haven't proven yourself right.
-
BTW, it's hilarious that when Tom was exposed and left, you know Tom your twin Administrator at that pathetic JFK Forum which pushes page after page of misinformation, that you suddenly restarted posting here with the EXACT same mean spirited one liners, it's as if you were tag team partners and when one is down and out, the other springs into action?? Some coincidence, eh!
Duncan has just shown you and your puppets just what he thinks of your BS by deleting a number of your crappy posts, but being the compulsive freak that you are, you just can't let it go, can you now?
Huh?
Lance's "A sock puppet among us?" thread is still on the front page of this Forum, you can run Weidmann but you can't hide!
BTW where's Tom? :D
JohnM
-
Huh?
Lance's "A sock puppet among us?" thread is still on the front page of this Forum, you can run Weidmann but you can't hide!
BTW where's Tom? :D
JohnM
BTW where's Tom?
I suspect he's with Vincent Baxter
-
Simple question that you refuse to answer; Which officer is the source of this list?
Since you are incapable of comprehending my hints, the List comes from the Warren Commissions Exhibit 1990. And as for who wrote it I really don't care because all that's in the wallet is Oswald's stuff that I would expect to find in Oswald's wallet such as family photos, Military ID's, Library cards, Fair Play for Cuba cards, Social Security card and I'm guessing why you have a bug up your Ass is the Hidell ID, right?
Now let's examine the Hidell ID.
The Hidell ID was forensically analysed to be signed by Oswald, the template of the fake ID was found in Oswald's possessions and Oswald admitted to Rose that his "name" was Hidell.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3VbnHF7/hidell-id.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJwLfSHH/Cadigan-ex-20-osw-ald-hidell-id.jpg)
Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
And as for inserting Hidell into various official documents and a number of establishments, the task would be truly herculean. So give up your lame objections and just accept that Oswald's alias "Hidell" ordered the rifle and revolver.
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Klein's coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Klein's microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
JohnM
-
Since you are incapable of comprehending my hints, the List comes from the Warren Commissions Exhibit 1990. And as for who wrote it I really don't care because all that's in the wallet is Oswald's stuff that I would expect to find in Oswald's wallet such as family photos, Military ID's, Library cards, Fair Play for Cuba cards, Social Security card and I'm guessing why you have a bug up your Ass is the Hidell ID, right?
Now let's examine the Hidell ID.
The Hidell ID was forensically analysed to be signed by Oswald, the template of the fake ID was found in Oswald's possessions and Oswald admitted to Rose that his "name" was Hidell.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3VbnHF7/hidell-id.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJwLfSHH/Cadigan-ex-20-osw-ald-hidell-id.jpg)
Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
And as for inserting Hidell into various official documents and a number of establishments, the task would be truly herculean. So give up your lame objections and just accept that Oswald's alias "Hidell" ordered the rifle and revolver.
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Klein's coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Klein's microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell name on on the Kleins Coupon found by Waldman on the night following the assassination was forgotten?
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
JohnM
Since you are incapable of comprehending my hints, the List comes from the Warren Commissions Exhibit 1990.
Well, if it is in your bible, it must be true, right? :D
And as for who wrote it I really don't care
Of course you don't care. The origin of evidence is just an incovenient detail, as long as it fits your biased narrative.
-
Since you are incapable of comprehending my hints, the List comes from the Warren Commissions Exhibit 1990.
Well, if it is in your bible, it must be true, right? :D
And as for who wrote it I really don't care
Of course you don't care. The origin of evidence is just an incovenient detail, as long as it fits your biased narrative.
..fits your biased narrative.
Hilarious, the only person here with a clear bias is you, it doesn't matter what the evidence against Oswald is, you always manufacture and embarrass yourself with non-existent flaws, and here we have Oswald's wallet which doesn't have a single problem;
Oswald's Social Security Card, every American citizen has access to a social security number and access to a Social security card.
Oswald's military ID's, Oswald was provably in the military.
Oswald's family photos, Oswald provably had a family.
Oswald's Cuba cards, Oswald signed the "Fair play for Cuba" card and Oswald is on film handing out Hands off Cuba leaflets and had a stack of Cuba and Fidel related material in his possessions.
Oswald's library card, Oswald borrowed and allegedly read books.
Oswald's fake Hidell ID, in Oswald's possessions was the template for this Fake ID, Oswald signed the fake ID, Oswald said his name was Hidell to Officer Rose, Oswald ordered his rifle back in March with the name Hidell, Oswald ordered the revolver back in March with the Hidell alias, Oswald paid for the rifle back in March with the fake Hidell alias.
Of course you don't care.
Knowing that everything in Oswald's wallet was irrefutably connected to Oswald, give me a reason to care?
JohnM
-
Dallas Police Officers, Guy Rose, and Richard Stovall, along with FBI Agent, Manning Clements,
all handled the Oswald IDs. Rose and Stovall met together with Lee, but are in dispute about the wallet,
Stovall says he had the wallet; Rose said he didn't.
Rose:
"He had already been searched and someone had his billfold.
I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not."
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Stovall:
"I don't recall exactly--
I went in and asked him for his identification, asked him who he was and he said his name was Lee Oswald,
as well as I remember. Rose and I were both in there at the time. He had his billfold and in it he had the
identification of "A. Hidell," which was on a selective service card, as well as I remember."
Stovall said he told them his name was Lee Oswald, Rose said he claimed to be Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Now, when he first came in there--you said that he said his name was "Hidell"?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before you saw the two cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. Did he give you his first name?
Mr. ROSE. He just said "Hidell"; I remember he just gave me the last name of "Hidell".
Mr. BALL. And then you found two or three cards on him?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
It was key to separate the contents; thereby disconnecting it to any other wallet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Inventory Control
I'm not sure where I got this from, but it breaks down the inventory reports of the wallet;
Rose and Stovall first said they "obtained" his ID (24H292).
In testimony, Stoval said Oswald had his billfold at the 1st interrogation (7H187-88)
while Rose said Lee had the contents of the billfold but not the billfold itself (7H228).
When FBI agent Clements saw Lee in the interrogation room by himself at 10 that night,
the wallet was on a desk in the room (7H320). While Lee was out of the room,
Clements went through the wallet and listed its contents (H 615-17).
On 11/24/63, Fritz furnished the FBI with Photos "of all the articles contained in the wallet of"
Lee Oswald at time of arrest. These were apparently given to Bookhout, whose report lists 17 items (24H17).
A receipt executed by Hosty, which reads (24H347):
"Received from Capt. Will Fritz at approximately 1:00 a.m. on 11/27/63"
"Billfold and 16 cards and pictures taken from Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63"
The maximum number of items (excluding the cash) is 17 (24H17).
Hosty's receipt lists only 16 items.
SA Clements lists 13 plus the cash, plus Lee's Social Sec. card which Lee "had...in possession."
Comparing the Clements list (H 615-17) with the Bookhout list of the photos Fritz supplied,
The following items are absent from Clements:
1. Photo of Oswald in marine uniform
2. A.J. Hidell Certificate of Service
3. slip of paper with 2 addresses for The Worker
FBI Agent Hosty also confirms this wallet was found at the scene.
Patrolman Leonard Jez, told a conference in 1999 that the wallet was identified at the murder scene as belonging to Oswald.
Yet the Hidell ID does not appear documented by Clements until Fritz hands over the inventory on 11/27.
That service card is key, and ties the murder weapon of the President with the officer's killer.
But it's all very suspicious, instant like, when Belin asked Hill about the name Hidell, the SGT became coy,
like he "couldn't say specifically", "...sounds like the name". That became the act by April 08, 1964.
Mr. HILL. "That would be similar. I couldn't say specifically that is what it was,
because this was a conversation and I never did see it written down, but that sounds like the name that I heard."
https://jfk.boards.net/post/4558/thread
-
BTW where's Tom?
I suspect he's with Vincent Baxter
I sent Tom a PM and when he replies, I'll fill you in if he's with Vincent! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Dallas Police Officers, Guy Rose, and Richard Stovall, along with FBI Agent, Manning Clements,
all handled the Oswald IDs. Rose and Stovall met together with Lee, but are in dispute about the wallet,
Stovall says he had the wallet; Rose said he didn't.
Rose:
"He had already been searched and someone had his billfold.
I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not."
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Stovall:
"I don't recall exactly--
I went in and asked him for his identification, asked him who he was and he said his name was Lee Oswald,
as well as I remember. Rose and I were both in there at the time. He had his billfold and in it he had the
identification of "A. Hidell," which was on a selective service card, as well as I remember."
Stovall said he told them his name was Lee Oswald, Rose said he claimed to be Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Now, when he first came in there--you said that he said his name was "Hidell"?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Was that before you saw the two cards?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. Did he give you his first name?
Mr. ROSE. He just said "Hidell"; I remember he just gave me the last name of "Hidell".
Mr. BALL. And then you found two or three cards on him?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
It was key to separate the contents; thereby disconnecting it to any other wallet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Inventory Control
I'm not sure where I got this from, but it breaks down the inventory reports of the wallet;
Rose and Stovall first said they "obtained" his ID (24H292).
In testimony, Stoval said Oswald had his billfold at the 1st interrogation (7H187-88)
while Rose said Lee had the contents of the billfold but not the billfold itself (7H228).
When FBI agent Clements saw Lee in the interrogation room by himself at 10 that night,
the wallet was on a desk in the room (7H320). While Lee was out of the room,
Clements went through the wallet and listed its contents (H 615-17).
On 11/24/63, Fritz furnished the FBI with Photos "of all the articles contained in the wallet of"
Lee Oswald at time of arrest. These were apparently given to Bookhout, whose report lists 17 items (24H17).
A receipt executed by Hosty, which reads (24H347):
"Received from Capt. Will Fritz at approximately 1:00 a.m. on 11/27/63"
"Billfold and 16 cards and pictures taken from Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63"
The maximum number of items (excluding the cash) is 17 (24H17).
Hosty's receipt lists only 16 items.
SA Clements lists 13 plus the cash, plus Lee's Social Sec. card which Lee "had...in possession."
Comparing the Clements list (H 615-17) with the Bookhout list of the photos Fritz supplied,
The following items are absent from Clements:
1. Photo of Oswald in marine uniform
2. A.J. Hidell Certificate of Service
3. slip of paper with 2 addresses for The Worker
FBI Agent Hosty also confirms this wallet was found at the scene.
Patrolman Leonard Jez, told a conference in 1999 that the wallet was identified at the murder scene as belonging to Oswald.
Yet the Hidell ID does not appear documented by Clements until Fritz hands over the inventory on 11/27.
That service card is key, and ties the murder weapon of the President with the officer's killer.
But it's all very suspicious, instant like, when Belin asked Hill about the name Hidell, the SGT became coy,
like he "couldn't say specifically", "...sounds like the name". That became the act by April 08, 1964.
Mr. HILL. "That would be similar. I couldn't say specifically that is what it was,
because this was a conversation and I never did see it written down, but that sounds like the name that I heard."
BS:
Lame.
More unproven Conspiracy garbage.
JohnM
-
Hilarious, the only person here with a clear bias is you, it doesn't matter what the evidence against Oswald is, you always manufacture and embarrass yourself with non-existent flaws, and here we have Oswald's wallet which doesn't have a single problem;
Oswald's Social Security Card, every American citizen has access to a social security number and access to a Social security card.
Oswald's military ID's, Oswald was provably in the military.
Oswald's family photos, Oswald provably had a family.
Oswald's Cuba cards, Oswald signed the "Fair play for Cuba" card and Oswald is on film handing out Hands off Cuba leaflets and had a stack of Cuba and Fidel related material in his possessions.
Oswald's library card, Oswald borrowed and allegedly read books.
Oswald's fake Hidell ID, in Oswald's possessions was the template for this Fake ID, Oswald signed the fake ID, Oswald said his name was Hidell to Officer Rose, Oswald ordered his rifle back in March with the name Hidell, Oswald ordered the revolver back in March with the Hidell alias, Oswald paid for the rifle back in March with the fake Hidell alias.
Knowing that everything in Oswald's wallet was irrefutably connected to Oswald, give me a reason to care?
JohnM
Hilarious, the only person here with a clear bias is you, it doesn't matter what the evidence against Oswald is,
Pathetic.
But let's see how unbiased you really are; name one piece of evidence used by the WC that is dubious.
I have already agreed that Oswald's quick departure from the TSBD works against him and that the BY photos are most likely authentic.
you always manufacture and embarrass yourself with non-existent flaws
What exactly have I manufactured? For once try to answer a question in a normal manner and be precise.
-
BS:
Lame.
More unproven Conspiracy garbage.
JohnM
Said the guy who claims to be unbiased! :D
-
Hilarious, the only person here with a clear bias is you, it doesn't matter what the evidence against Oswald is,
Pathetic.
But let's see how unbiased you really are; name one piece of evidence used by the WC that is dubious.
I have already agreed that Oswald's quick departure from the TSBD works against him and that the BY photos are most likely authentic.
you always manufacture and embarrass yourself with non-existent flaws
What exactly have I manufactured? For once try to answer a question in a normal manner and be precise.
I have already agreed that Oswald's quick departure from the TSBD works against him and that the BY photos are most likely authentic.
Big Deal!
The backyard photos have been proven 7 ways to Sunday and you have no choice but to accept their authenticity but and it's a big but, here is where your biased manufacturing and inventing impossible scenarios comes into play, your allegation that the rifle in the backyard photos isn't the same one that Kleins sent, which leads to these wild fabrications;
• That there is no proof Oswald ordered the rifle
• That the money order was faked
• That Oswald's Hidell alias was faked
• That Kleins records and microfilm were altered
• That Kleins didn't send the rifle
• That Oswald didn't receive the rifle
• That Oswald didn't use the rifle in the following month after the backyard photos in Oswald's assassination attempt on Walker
• That the rifle in the backyard photo is a different rifle
• That Marina saw a block of wood in the blanket
• That Oswald didn't take the rifle to work on the 22nd
• That the rifle found on the 6th floor wasn't Oswald's
• That the palm print was faked
• That the fibre evidence means absolutely nothing
• That the relatively fresh prints in the Sniper's nest are worthless
• That Oswald's interrogation questions and answers re the rifle have been falsified
Etc Etc.
And as for Oswald in immediately flight from the scene of the crime, well that's a no brainer! DUH!
But what happened next is another series of Weidmann bias, from Bledsoe hallucinations and the planted bus transfer, to the cab ride, to Earlene Roberts, to Tippit's murder and the planted wallet and the jacket, to what happened in the Texas Theatre and Oswald's revolver being swapped and ETC, ETC, are all in severe aggressive dispute!
You're a Loon!
(https://i.postimg.cc/fbWTbbtc/charles-manson-gif.gif)
JohnM
-
Said the guy who claims to be unbiased! :D
Thanks Martin, I'm glad you are here to answer for Michael and give him your full support, because he needs all the help he can get! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
BS:
Lame.
More unproven Conspiracy garbage.
JohnM
It is indeed classic Conspiracy Think. Every discrepancy becomes a "conspiracy fact" in the minds of these characters. If one witness says the car was purple, one says red and one says maroon - voila, three cars were fleeing from the scene and the routine hit-and-run becomes a mysterious conspiracy! These peoples' minds simply cannot be penetrated by rational thought. One can only observe the mysterious workings and marvel that they somehow function in the real world. It is ABSOLUTELY like attempting to discuss an issue with a Flat Earther, Fake Moon Landing fanatic, or any species of hardcore religious fundamentalist. Been there, done that. At some level, deep down, I have to believe they know they are spouting nonsense, but the desire to believe transcends rational thought.
-
This little exchange is almost a textbook lesson in Conspiracy Think.
First, let’s ask an epistemological question: What is the likelihood that Lee Harvey Oswald, after having been arrested at the Texas Theater and brought to the Dallas Police headquarters, would still have a wallet, loose ID cards or anything else on him? Zero? Yes, that sounds about right.
Next, we note the following in Stovall’s Warren Commission testimony, just in the brief part where he is addressing his participation in the interrogation of Oswald:
“I don’t recall exactly …”
“as well as I remember …”
“as well as I remember …”
“I’m not positive on that …”
“I’m not sure …”
Hmmm. In Conspiracy Think, of course, a witness’s admission that he didn’t pay much attention or really doesn’t recall is irrelevant. He is forever locked into whatever he said.
When Rose testified to the Warren Commission, he did not say that he found Oswald’s wallet on him. He said Oswald “had already been searched” and “someone had his billfold.” He “wasn’t sure” whether it was “the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.” He agreed the contents of Oswald’s wallet were “before him.”
The only confusing part is where Rose is asked, “And then you found two or three cards on him?” and answers, “Yes, we did.” This is immediately before he is asked whether he searched Oswald and answers that Oswald had already been searched, that someone had his wallet, and that the contents of the wallet were before him.
Hmmm. We can either believe that (1) Rose simply misspoke or (2) Oswald still had an Oswald ID card and a Hidell ID card loose in his pocket.
Next, we note that Stovall, Rose and Adamcik completed a joint report of their activities on the day of the assassination. You can find it here, on page 27: http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Anatomy%20Of%20Oswalds%20Interrogations%20V3-WEB.pdf
The joint report said nothing about a wallet or finding ID cards in Oswald’s pocket. It merely stated, “We (Rose and Stovall) talked to him briefly, obtaining his ID and name, …”
Hmmm. “Obtaining.”
Lastly, Rose was the subject of an HSCA interview on April 13, 1978. You can find it at http://www.prayer-man.com/dpd/gus-rose/#lightbox[group]/0/. Rose was quite clear as to what had occurred:
“And one of the officers handed me a wallet they had taken out of his pocket. And I asked the suspect what his name was.”
“And when he told me his name was Hidell I just flipped open his billfold and looked through his identification cards and I also found the name Lee Harvey Oswald. So I said here’s some identification for Oswald, is Hidell your real name?”
Here in the Real World, there is no mystery. Rose was given Oswald’s wallet, found the conflicting ID cards, and asked about them. As might well be expected here in the Real World, the recollections of Rose and Stovall did not mesh exactly.
In Conspiracy World, however, there is highly suspicious conflict, dispute and mystery. In Conspiracy World, there is ALWAYS highly suspicious conflict, dispute and mystery!
-
In Conspiracy World, however, there is highly suspicious conflict, dispute and mystery.
If that is the world you live in, then maybe that is your problem.
-
Big Deal!
The backyard photos have been proven 7 ways to Sunday and you have no choice but to accept their authenticity but and it's a big but, here is where your biased manufacturing and inventing impossible scenarios comes into play, your allegation that the rifle in the backyard photos isn't the same one that Kleins sent, which leads to these wild fabrications;
• That there is no proof Oswald ordered the rifle
• That the money order was faked
• That Oswald's Hidell alias was faked
• That Kleins records and microfilm were altered
• That Kleins didn't send the rifle
• That Oswald didn't receive the rifle
• That Oswald didn't use the rifle in the following month after the backyard photos in Oswald's assassination attempt on Walker
• That the rifle in the backyard photo is a different rifle
• That Marina saw a block of wood in the blanket
• That Oswald didn't take the rifle to work on the 22nd
• That the rifle found on the 6th floor wasn't Oswald's
• That the palm print was faked
• That the fibre evidence means absolutely nothing
• That the relatively fresh prints in the Sniper's nest are worthless
• That Oswald's interrogation questions and answers re the rifle have been falsified
Etc Etc.
And as for Oswald in immediately flight from the scene of the crime, well that's a no brainer! DUH!
But what happened next is another series of Weidmann bias, from Bledsoe hallucinations and the planted bus transfer, to the cab ride, to Earlene Roberts, to Tippit's murder and the planted wallet and the jacket, to what happened in the Texas Theatre and Oswald's revolver being swapped and ETC, ETC, are all in severe aggressive dispute!
You're a Loon!
(https://i.postimg.cc/fbWTbbtc/charles-manson-gif.gif)
JohnM
So much aggression can only originate from an extremely biased cult member who hasn't got the ability to consider anything that doesn't fit his holy narrative and has no arguments to show that another interpretation of the evidence is incorrect.
But thank you for demonstrating so clearly just how biased you really are! I've asked you to, for once, answer a question in a normal manner and be precise and you can't even do that.
Instead you post BS that, in your mind, means that anybody who doubts and asks questions about the evidence is presenting "wild fabrications" based on "biased manufacturing and inventing impossible scenarios".
You don't even understand that all of it is right out the cult handbook. That's sad!
You are the school example of somebody who knows enough about a subject to think he's right, but not enough to know he's wrong
-
It is indeed classic Conspiracy Think. Every discrepancy becomes a "conspiracy fact" in the minds of these characters. If one witness says the car was purple, one says red and one says maroon - voila, three cars were fleeing from the scene and the routine hit-and-run becomes a mysterious conspiracy! These peoples' minds simply cannot be penetrated by rational thought. One can only observe the mysterious workings and marvel that they somehow function in the real world. It is ABSOLUTELY like attempting to discuss an issue with a Flat Earther, Fake Moon Landing fanatic, or any species of hardcore religious fundamentalist. Been there, done that. At some level, deep down, I have to believe they know they are spouting nonsense, but the desire to believe transcends rational thought.
It is ABSOLUTELY like attempting to discuss an issue with a Flat Earther, Fake Moon Landing fanatic, or any species of hardcore religious fundamentalist. Been there, done that.
So has "Mytton".
Wow, just another amazing coincidence. Go figure.
-
The swami makes no accusations. The swami makes only observations. The swami accepts that one Michael Capasse is indeed a living, embodied person living in Connecticut.
Be that as it may, the swami notes that the mysterious Tom Sorensen is ostensibly a fellow Administrator of Mr. Capasse at their obscure JFKBoards.net. This obscure site has only 11 members and, indeed, pretty much no one ever posts there except the Administrators. If there is a non-Administrator participant who might qualify as the Martin of this forum, I am unable to identify him.
Set forth below is a representative sampling of Mr. Capasse's responses to the mysterious Martin. All three individuals - Mr. Capasse, the mysterious Tom and the mysterious Martin - have a visceral hatred of The Donald, an intense personal animosity toward certain participants here (notably John Mytton and Richard Smith), and an affinity for much the same vocabulary and especially the same ad hominem terminology. "You could look it up," as Casey Stengel used to say.
Startling coincidences do happen, of course.
The swami (oh, that's me) makes no accusations. The swami makes only observations.
These are all responses of Mr. Capasse to the posts of the mysterious Martin:
Thumb1:
Thumb1:
Nutters think they can knock down conspiracy theories all day long to better the Oswald theory. It does nothing.
What they ignore is, they're the only ones that have to anything to prove.
Nutters will tell you they are mistaken even when witnesses themselves insist they were not.
Thumb1:
One of the Administrators at the obscure site is one Arjan Hut, a Dutch poet who sounds far too interesting to be the mysterious Martin:
https://dichterfanfryslan.nl/en/poets/arjan-hut/
He does curiously live in the same one-hour-east-of-the-UK time zone as Martin "from Europe," but the swami makes no accusations; the swami makes only observations.
"Weidmann in the context of the Netherlands refers to both a brewery and a supplier of beer, with a history dating back to 1538. The brewery, Weidmann, offers a wide range of beer styles, from classic Dutch lagers to German Weissbier, under its own heritage brands or through trading brands." Merely an observation.
(https://www.uniteddutchbreweries.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Weidmann-Portfolio-Radler.jpg)
Since all three (or five or whatever) have been relegated to the realm of non-existence, the swami will now cease even to make observations on this aspect of this curious forum. If permitted to do so, the swami will be changing his forum name to Old Rasputin in honor of Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Ale.
-
The swami makes no accusations. The swami makes only observations. The swami accepts that one Michael Capasse is indeed a living, embodied person living in Connecticut.
Be that as it may, the swami notes that the mysterious Tom Sorensen is ostensibly a fellow Administrator of Mr. Capasse at their obscure JFKBoards.net. This obscure site has only 11 members and, indeed, pretty much no one ever posts there except the Administrators. If there is a non-Administrator participant who might qualify as the Martin of this forum, I am unable to identify him.
Set forth below is a representative sampling of Mr. Capasse's responses to the mysterious Martin. All three individuals - Mr. Capasse, the mysterious Tom and the mysterious Martin - have a visceral hatred of The Donald, an intense personal animosity toward certain participants here (notably John Mytton and Richard Smith), and an affinity for much the same vocabulary and especially the same ad hominem terminology. "You could look it up," as Casey Stengel used to say.
Startling coincidences do happen, of course.
The swami (oh, that's me) makes no accusations. The swami makes only observations.
These are all responses of Mr. Capasse to the posts of the mysterious Martin:
One of the Administrators at the obscure site is one Arjan Hut, a Dutch poet who sounds far too interesting to be the mysterious Martin:
https://dichterfanfryslan.nl/en/poets/arjan-hut/
He does curiously live in the same one-hour-east-of-the-UK time zone as Martin "from Europe," but the swami makes no accusations; the swami makes only observations.
"Weidmann in the context of the Netherlands refers to both a brewery and a supplier of beer, with a history dating back to 1538. The brewery, Weidmann, offers a wide range of beer styles, from classic Dutch lagers to German Weissbier, under its own heritage brands or through trading brands." Merely an observation.
(https://www.uniteddutchbreweries.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Weidmann-Portfolio-Radler.jpg)
Since all three (or five or whatever) have been relegated to the realm of non-existence, the swami will now cease even to make observations on this aspect of this curious forum. If permitted to do so, the swami will be changing his forum name to Old Rasputin in honor of Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Ale.
He does curiously live in the same one-hour-east-of-the-UK time zone as Martin "from Europe,"
It's called GMT + 1! You don't even know that? I bet you've never even heard of Greenwich Mean Time.
Btw, what's curious about it? Don't you know that every country in Western Europe from the Netherlands to Poland and Spain to Serbia all have the same time zone (except Portugal)?
"Weidmann in the context of the Netherlands refers to both a brewery and a supplier of beer, with a history dating back to 1538.
You've got to love it when a "know-it-all" (who wants to talk about anything but the evidence is this case) gets basic information wrong. The Weidmann brewery is Germany; https://www.weidmannbier.com/
-
"Weidmann in the context of the Netherlands refers to both a brewery and a supplier of beer, with a history dating back to 1538. The brewery, Weidmann, offers a wide range of beer styles, from classic Dutch lagers to German Weissbier, under its own heritage brands or through trading brands." Merely an observation.
(https://www.uniteddutchbreweries.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Weidmann-Portfolio-Radler.jpg)
Hahahaha!
It's pretty obvious that Martin likes a little drinkypoo when he's posting but 2.5% alcohol, yikes!
But admittedly that's a pretty cool name to pick as an alias, maybe next next time he/she could pick "Victoria Bitter" because at least that's a man's beer!
And the "Bitter" part is kinda appropriate.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHS2Rd8F/VB-the-drink-of-champions.jpg)
JohnM
-
The swami makes no accusations. The swami makes only observations.
The swami observes that Weidmann beer has been part of United Dutch Breweries since 2002: https://www.uniteddutchbreweries.com/project/weidmann/#PILSENER
The swami observes that the Weidmann site itself is "powered by United Dutch Breweries": https://www.weidmannbier.com/
The swami observes that he is indeed rather much familiar with GMT and even GMT +1 since he has close relatives in France. The swami merely observes the correlation between the "Arjan Hut the Dutch poet" time zone (to wit, GMT +1) and the "mysterious Martin from Europe" time zone (to wit, GMT +1) and the curious fact that Weidmann beer is distributed by United Dutch Breweries.
The swami merely observes these things. He makes no accusations.
Because the swami is a sucker for Dutch poems about potatoes, he offers below Arjan Hut reciting one of the poems that made him famous. The swami observes that he has difficulty picturing this gentleman as a venom-spewing sock puppet on a JFKA forum, but on the other hand this gentleman does indeed claim a strong interest in the JFKA and is, unless there are two Arjan Huts with this interest, the Administrator of the obscure 11-member JFKA forum.
The swami makes no accusations. He merely observes that this is all rather curious.
-
The swami makes no accusations. The swami makes only observations.
The swami observes that Weidmann beer has been part of United Dutch Breweries since 2002: https://www.uniteddutchbreweries.com/project/weidmann/#PILSENER
The swami observes that the Weidmann site itself is "powered by United Dutch Breweries": https://www.weidmannbier.com/
The swami observes that he is indeed rather much familiar with GMT and even GMT +1 since he has close relatives in France. The swami merely observes the correlation between the "Arjan Hut the Dutch poet" time zone (to wit, GMT +1) and the "mysterious Martin from Europe" time zone (to wit, GMT +1) and the curious fact that Weidmann beer is distributed by United Dutch Breweries.
The swami merely observes these things. He makes no accusations.
Because the swami is a sucker for Dutch poems about potatoes, he offers below Arjan Hut reciting one of the poems that made him famous. The swami observes that he has difficulty picturing this gentleman as a venom-spewing sock puppet on a JFKA forum, but on the other hand this gentleman does indeed claim a strong interest in the JFKA and is, unless there are two Arjan Huts with this interest, the Administrator of the obscure 11-member JFKA forum.
The swami makes no accusations. He merely observes that this is all rather curious.
The swami makes no accusations. The swami makes only observations.
And they are really stupid.
The swami observes that Weidmann beer has been part of United Dutch Breweries since 2002: https://www.uniteddutchbreweries.com/project/weidmann/#PILSENER
The swami observes that the Weidmann site itself is "powered by United Dutch Breweries": https://www.weidmannbier.com/
So, in 2002 a multinational buys a German brewery, founded in 1538, and suddenly it's a brewery in the Netherlands? Oh boy, don't embarrass yourself any further....
The swami observes that he is indeed rather much familiar with GMT and even GMT +1 since he has close relatives in France.
Of course, that's why you called it the "one-hour-east-of-the-UK time zone" which nobody else does....
since he has close relatives in France.
Yeah, right.... HAHAHAHAHAHA
The swami merely observes these things. He makes no accusations.
Indeed, all he does is make stupid remarks that expose his ignorance
Because the swami is a sucker for Dutch poems about potatoes,
Als jij Nederlandse gedichten zo leuk vind, dan begrijp je dit zonder dat je een vertaalprogramma nodig hebt. Dit is wat er gebeurd als je te maken hebt met iemand die minimaal zes spraken meer beheerst dan jou!
The swami observes that he has difficulty picturing this gentleman as a venom-spewing sock puppet on a JFKA forum, but on the other hand this gentleman does indeed claim a strong interest in the JFKA and is, unless there are two Arjan Huts with this interest, the Administrator of the obscure 11-member JFKA forum.
Wow, why not simply ask him in Fries? You know what Friesland is, right?
-
Hahahaha!
It's pretty obvious that Martin likes a little drinkypoo when he's posting but 2.5% alcohol, yikes!
JohnM
Actually, Martin prefers Soberano.
-
This little exchange is almost a textbook lesson in Conspiracy Think.
First, let’s ask an epistemological question: What is the likelihood that Lee Harvey Oswald, after having been arrested at the Texas Theater and brought to the Dallas Police headquarters, would still have a wallet, loose ID cards or anything else on him? Zero? Yes, that sounds about right.
Next, we note the following in Stovall’s Warren Commission testimony, just in the brief part where he is addressing his participation in the interrogation of Oswald:
“I don’t recall exactly …”
“as well as I remember …”
“as well as I remember …”
“I’m not positive on that …”
“I’m not sure …”
Hmmm. In Conspiracy Think, of course, a witness’s admission that he didn’t pay much attention or really doesn’t recall is irrelevant. He is forever locked into whatever he said.
When Rose testified to the Warren Commission, he did not say that he found Oswald’s wallet on him. He said Oswald “had already been searched” and “someone had his billfold.” He “wasn’t sure” whether it was “the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.” He agreed the contents of Oswald’s wallet were “before him.”
The only confusing part is where Rose is asked, “And then you found two or three cards on him?” and answers, “Yes, we did.” This is immediately before he is asked whether he searched Oswald and answers that Oswald had already been searched, that someone had his wallet, and that the contents of the wallet were before him.
Hmmm. We can either believe that (1) Rose simply misspoke or (2) Oswald still had an Oswald ID card and a Hidell ID card loose in his pocket.
Next, we note that Stovall, Rose and Adamcik completed a joint report of their activities on the day of the assassination. You can find it here, on page 27: http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Anatomy%20Of%20Oswalds%20Interrogations%20V3-WEB.pdf
The joint report said nothing about a wallet or finding ID cards in Oswald’s pocket. It merely stated, “We (Rose and Stovall) talked to him briefly, obtaining his ID and name, …”
Hmmm. “Obtaining.”
Lastly, Rose was the subject of an HSCA interview on April 13, 1978. You can find it at http://www.prayer-man.com/dpd/gus-rose/#lightbox[group]/0/. Rose was quite clear as to what had occurred:
“And one of the officers handed me a wallet they had taken out of his pocket. And I asked the suspect what his name was.”
“And when he told me his name was Hidell I just flipped open his billfold and looked through his identification cards and I also found the name Lee Harvey Oswald. So I said here’s some identification for Oswald, is Hidell your real name?”
Here in the Real World, there is no mystery. Rose was given Oswald’s wallet, found the conflicting ID cards, and asked about them. As might well be expected here in the Real World, the recollections of Rose and Stovall did not mesh exactly.
In Conspiracy World, however, there is highly suspicious conflict, dispute and mystery. In Conspiracy World, there is ALWAYS highly suspicious conflict, dispute and mystery!
Hmmm. In Conspiracy Think, of course, a witness’s admission that he didn’t pay much attention or really doesn’t recall is irrelevant. He is forever locked into whatever he said.
A classic example of someone who didn't pay much attention is Buell Wesley Frazier, he repeatedly says that he never payed much attention to the paper sack and why should he have, they were just innocuous "curtain rods" in a plain brown paper bag and when Frazier did see Oswald holding the bag in his famous recollection that has now become CT gospel of "armpit to cupped hand" that was only from a distance and from behind. But I have a sneaking suspicion that naïve Frazier initially never did pay much attention to the bag but as the horror of the events became clear and his sudden realization that he transported Oswald with his rifle to work, Frazier in an effort to distance himself from the assassination, started "remembering" events a little differently.
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
And to be honest I don't blame Frazier he was just a 19 year old kid who was used by a killer, in fact I think others also saw the brown paper package but just kept their mouths shut, Dougherty who was another well intentioned but not quite all there employee, testified to the following. Even though Dougherty's testimony was a bit bonkers, this should have been followed up.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
JohnM
-
Actually, Martin prefers Soberano.
I had to look that up but that seems like a nice brew, with 36% alcohol that must have a bit of a kick. Even though I've been mostly sober since 2023, that could tempt me. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Mytton'scusess
Frazier lied about the size of the bag; except when he was mistaken.
Thumb1: another lame excuse by John Mytton, not in the official record -- collect them all !
-
Mytton'scusess
Frazier lied about the size of the bag; except when he was mistaken.
Thumb1: another lame excuse by John Mytton, not in the official record -- collect them all !
When I agree with what's in the official record you hate me.
When I disagree with what's in the official record you hate me.
At least you're consistent! LOL!
Anyway, the WC Report and the Official Volumes isn't the Bible written by the word of God, and I'm allowed to disagree with certain insignificant aspects and in this case regarding Frazier, it ultimately doesn't matter what Frazier says about the size of the bag, because;
The bag was the perfect size for the rifle.
The bag had multiple Oswald prints.
The bag was discovered in the Sniper's nest next to the relatively fresh Oswald prints.
The bag was on the other side of the floor where Oswald's rifle was found.
The bag's location in Frazier's car was lied about by Oswald, because obviously the bag was too big to carry it on his lap.
The Bag's contents were lied about by Oswald who said to Frazier that the contents were curtain rods and told the Police the bag contained his lunch.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMpkPds5/Oswald-put-long-brown-bag-in-back-of-Frazier-s-car.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8PN8n7Sd/Osw-aldsprintsonthebag.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bwVKJL2L/Osw-alds-Rifle-Paper-Bag.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/YS4Tmg67/oswaldsprintssnipersnest1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FsWPgzsH/Rifle-Found-In-TSBDFrom-Alyea-Film-2a.jpg)
JohnM
-
A classic example of someone who didn't pay much attention is Buell Wesley Frazier, he repeatedly says that he never payed much attention to the paper sack and why should he have, they were just innocuous "curtain rods" in a plain brown paper bag and when Frazier did see Oswald holding the bag in his famous recollection that has now become CT gospel of "armpit to cupped hand" that was only from a distance and from behind. But I have a sneaking suspicion that naïve Frazier initially never did pay much attention to the bag but as the horror of the events became clear and his sudden realization that he transported Oswald with his rifle to work, Frazier in an effort to distance himself from the assassination, started "remembering" events a little differently.
Mr. BALL - All right. When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.
Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
And to be honest I don't blame Frazier he was just a 19 year old kid who was used by a killer, in fact I think others also saw the brown paper package but just kept their mouths shut, Dougherty who was another well intentioned but not quite all there employee, testified to the following. Even though Dougherty's testimony was a bit bonkers, this should have been followed up.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
JohnM
Yes, Frazier's testimony was what first alerted me to this CT game. The number of times he said "I really wasn't paying much attention" literally leaps off the page. Then we factor in the reality that there was utterly no reason for him to have been paying much attention. Yet it is now conspiracy gospel that Oswald was carrying a package tucked under his armpit that was too short to be the rifle.
I think we do have to be somewhat impressed with Frazier and Randle sticking to their guns (pun?) about the package being too short. It seemingly would have been easy for them to cave in on that. Of course, that cuts both ways - the WC (supposedly) could intimidate doctors and other witnesses into toeing the party line, but not folksy Buell and Linnie Mae - really? Frazier is instructive in another way: his pathetic metamorphosis into the story he tells today should be instructive as to how seriously to take any of these latter-day tales.
I'm always struck by real-life incidents. Try to recall what you had for lunch yesterday, or what your wife (or maybe you!) was wearing yesterday. Unless your wife was wearing a Weidmann Beer t-shirt, it isn't easy. Yet everyone connected with the events of 11-22 is assumed by the CT community to have had a photographic memory. If their recall fits the CT narrative, it becomes conspiracy gospel. If not, they are lying because someone "got to them." And on it goes.
-
When I agree with what's in the official record you hate me.
When I disagree with what's in the official record you hate me.
At least you're consistent! LOL!
Anyway, the WC Report and the Official Volumes isn't the Bible written by the word of God, and I'm allowed to disagree with certain insignificant aspects and in this case regarding Frazier, it ultimately doesn't matter what Frazier says about the size of the bag, because;
The bag was the perfect size for the rifle.
The bag had multiple Oswald prints.
The bag was discovered in the Sniper's nest next to the relatively fresh Oswald prints.
The bag was on the other side of the floor where Oswald's rifle was found.
The bag's location in Frazier's car was lied about by Oswald, because obviously the bag was too big to carry it on his lap.
The Bag's contents were lied about by Oswald who said to Frazier that the contents were curtain rods and told the Police the bag contained his lunch.
JohnM
They believe in two Oswalds, two shooters, two autopsies, two Zapruder films, why not two John Myttons?
It's always 1964 with the conspiracy believers. As if the Warren Commission is the only investigation we've had into the assassination. Sixty plus years of investigations by several generations of Americans in the government and outside of it. Investigative reporters, scholars, historians have all looked, directly and indirectly, into the assassination. Histories of the CIA, the FBI have been done. Biographies on the major figures have been compiled.
All of this additional information, it fills half a library, volumes of it. Should we simply dismiss all of this as just "the Warren Commission?"
-
When I agree with what's in the official record you hate me.
When I disagree with what's in the official record you hate me.
At least you're consistent! LOL!
Anyway, the WC Report and the Official Volumes isn't the Bible written by the word of God, and I'm allowed to disagree with certain insignificant aspects and in this case regarding Frazier, it ultimately doesn't matter what Frazier says about the size of the bag, because;
The bag was the perfect size for the rifle.
The bag had multiple Oswald prints.
The bag was discovered in the Sniper's nest next to the relatively fresh Oswald prints.
The bag was on the other side of the floor where Oswald's rifle was found.
The bag's location in Frazier's car was lied about by Oswald, because obviously the bag was too big to carry it on his lap.
The Bag's contents were lied about by Oswald who said to Frazier that the contents were curtain rods and told the Police the bag contained his lunch.
JohnM
All this is based on the assumption that the bag found at the 6th floor of the TSBD was the same one that Oswald carried earlier that day.
There is no evidence for that and on Friday evening Frazier denied it was the same bag.
-
Yes, Frazier's testimony was what first alerted me to this CT game. The number of times he said "I really wasn't paying much attention" literally leaps off the page. Then we factor in the reality that there was utterly no reason for him to have been paying much attention. Yet it is now conspiracy gospel that Oswald was carrying a package tucked under his armpit that was too short to be the rifle.
I think we do have to be somewhat impressed with Frazier and Randle sticking to their guns (pun?) about the package being too short. It seemingly would have been easy for them to cave in on that. Of course, that cuts both ways - the WC (supposedly) could intimidate doctors and other witnesses into toeing the party line, but not folksy Buell and Linnie Mae - really? Frazier is instructive in another way: his pathetic metamorphosis into the story he tells today should be instructive as to how seriously to take any of these latter-day tales.
I'm always struck by real-life incidents. Try to recall what you had for lunch yesterday, or what your wife (or maybe you!) was wearing yesterday. Unless your wife was wearing a Weidmann Beer t-shirt, it isn't easy. Yet everyone connected with the events of 11-22 is assumed by the CT community to have had a photographic memory. If their recall fits the CT narrative, it becomes conspiracy gospel. If not, they are lying because someone "got to them." And on it goes.
The LN double standard at work. Earlene Roberts, who had poor vision to begin with, said she didn't pay much attention to Oswald as she was concentrating on getting the TV to work. yet the LNs insist that her testimony about Oswald wearing a jacket was 100% accurate, despite the fact that Roberts couldn't identify the jacket shown to her at her testimony because the one she had seen was darker.
Isn't it amazing how that "didn't pay much attention" stuff works....
-
The LN double standard at work. Earlene Roberts, who had poor vision to begin with, said she didn't pay much attention to Oswald as she was concentrating on getting the TV to work. yet the LNs insist that her testimony about Oswald wearing a jacket was 100% accurate, despite the fact that Roberts couldn't identify the jacket shown to her at her testimony because the one she had seen was darker.
Isn't it amazing how that "didn't pay much attention" stuff works....
Sure Earlene had a little trouble with her eyesight but she wasn't blind, and that's why there was a slight discrepancy remembering the exact shade of the jacket which by the way she saw in a different environment and therefore used words like "seems" and "I won't be sure". Thanks for pointing out the fact about Earlene's eyesight because ironically it helps the LNer case more than the CT allegation! Thumb1:
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
But she sure did remember the specific action of Oswald zipping up the jacket!!
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
And guess what the jacket in evidence is a zipper type, how about that!
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/84/de/4c/84de4c19cb3dd82f3574119becfc20eb.jpg)
And many other eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene remembered Oswald wearing a grey/tan jacket, and at the Texas Theater when Oswald was photographed outside, he had NO jacket. Oops!
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
JohnM
-
They believe in two Oswalds, two shooters, two autopsies, two Zapruder films, why not two John Myttons?
It's always 1964 with the conspiracy believers. As if the Warren Commission is the only investigation we've had into the assassination. Sixty plus years of investigations by several generations of Americans in the government and outside of it. Investigative reporters, scholars, historians have all looked, directly and indirectly, into the assassination. Histories of the CIA, the FBI have been done. Biographies on the major figures have been compiled.
All of this additional information, it fills half a library, volumes of it. Should we simply dismiss all of this as just "the Warren Commission?"
Thanks Steve, I totally agree, there has been a heck of a lot of research and investigations in this case, probably more than any other murder in history, and 60+ years later there is still only one narrative that fits from beginning to end, Oswald did it!
JohnM
-
Sure Earlene had a little trouble with her eyesight but she wasn't blind, and that's why there was a slight discrepancy remembering the exact shade of the jacket which by the way she saw in a different environment and therefore used words like "seems" and "I won't be sure". Thanks for pointing out the fact about Earlene's eyesight because ironically it helps the LNer case more than the CT allegation! Thumb1:
Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?
But she sure did remember the specific action of Oswald zipping up the jacket!!
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Mr. BALL. He was zipping it up as he went out the door?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes.
And guess what the jacket in evidence is a zipper type, how about that!
Sure Earlene had a little trouble with her eyesight but she wasn't blind
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.
Oops!
that's why there was a slight discrepancy remembering the exact shade of the jacket which by the way she saw
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Oops!
And guess what the jacket in evidence is a zipper type, how about that!
How about what? Just because the jacket in evidence is a zipper type, it must be the same jacket that Roberts could not identify because the one Oswald was wearing was darker!
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/84/de/4c/84de4c19cb3dd82f3574119becfc20eb.jpg)
And many other eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene remembered Oswald wearing a grey/tan jacket, and at the Texas Theater when Oswald was photographed outside, he had NO jacket. Oops!
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
JohnM
Circular logic.
1. Witnesses saw the killer wearing a jacket, so Oswald must have left the rooming house wearing a jacket
2. Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket, so the witnesses must have seen Oswald.
Pathetic!
-
....and on Friday evening Frazier denied it was the same bag.
That's because as Frazier repeatedly says in his testimony that he never payed much attention to the bag! Doh!
JohnM
-
Sure Earlene had a little trouble with her eyesight but she wasn't blind
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.
Oops!
that's why there was a slight discrepancy remembering the exact shade of the jacket which by the way she saw
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Oops!
And guess what the jacket in evidence is a zipper type, how about that!
How about what? Just because the jacket in evidence is a zipper type, it must be the same jacket that Roberts could not identify because the one Oswald was wearing was darker!
Circular logic.
1. Witnesses saw the killer wearing a jacket, so Oswald must have left the rooming house wearing a jacket
2. Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket, so the witnesses must have seen Oswald.
Pathetic!
Huh?
Earlene wasn't blind in her left eye. LOL.
1. Multiple eyewitnesses positively identified the killer with the gun at the scene or moving away to be Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. Multiple eyewitnesses positively identified Oswald wearing a jacket.
Do you even know how circular logic works?? LMFAO. Hahaha.
Do some more research then get back to me. Bye bye.
JohnM
-
Thanks Steve, I totally agree, there has been a heck of a lot of research and investigations in this case, probably more than any other murder in history, and 60+ years later there is still only one narrative that fits from beginning to end, Oswald did it!
JohnM
research and investigations in this case,
Indeed... the same evidence (as far as it was available at a particular time) was researched and investigated over and over again.
Start with the same evidence, limit the scope of the investigation, politicize the process and then be not surprised that the outcome is the same.
What there has never ever been, and probably never will be, is an independent re-investigation of this case from scratch. It's way too late for that now, so the victor writes the history as if he's right.
When Henry Tudor had beaten Richard III in battle, he backdated his ascend to the throne with two days, so that he could claim in the history books that Richard III was an usurper from whom he had reclaimed the crown.
All BS of course, but it's still in the offical records,.... so it must be true, right?
-
Huh?
Earlene wasn't blind in her left eye. LOL.
1. Multiple eyewitnesses positively identified the killer with the gun at the scene or moving away to be Lee Harvey Oswald.
2. Multiple eyewitnesses positively identified Oswald wearing a jacket.
Do you even know how circular logic works?? LMFAO. Hahaha.
Do some more research then get back to me. Bye bye.
JohnM
Earlene wasn't blind in her left eye. LOL.
Nobody said she was, but some fool claimed she only had "a little trouble with her eyesight"
Do you even know how circular logic works?? LMFAO. Hahaha.
Actually I do, but you clearly don't.
Do some more research then get back to me. Bye bye.
You can always tell when "Mytton" feels cornered
Now sit back and watch him come back with some sort of crappy condescending rant.
Mytton's double standard;
Frazier who has 20/20 eyesight but wasn't paying much attention was wrong about what he saw and Roberts who was blind in one eye, had poor eyesight and wasn't paying much attention was 100% correct about what she saw!
Hilarious and sad at the same time
-
He was sure how it was held.... Doh!
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
and the bottom:
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here,
like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that...".
-
Once again, we are provided with a textbook lesson in Conspiracy Think.
Frazier and Randle insisted the package they saw was several inches shorter than a disassembled Carcano. It would have been nice for the WC narrative if they could have been convinced, coerced or intimidated into changing their stories, but they were firm. Randle in particular was impressive in regard to the package.
Here in the Real World, we take account of the circumstances under which they saw the package, how much attention they paid and how different their observations were from what they would have seen if Oswald had been carrying the disassembled Carcano (6.3” in the case of Randle, 28.5" vs. 34.8"). If Frazier and Randle had been firm that Oswald was carrying an ordinary little lunch sack, the WC would have had, and the LN narrative would have, a much more significant problem. As it was, they established a longish, stiff package.
We factor what Frazier and Randle observed into the totality of the circumstances, from the purchase of the rifle to its storage in the Paine garage; to Oswald’s curious Thursday trip and curtain rod explanation; to the rifle being found in the TSBD and identified as the assassination weapon. The rational conclusion is that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken regarding the length, which is entirely understandable given the circumstances under which they saw the package and how much attention they would have paid; at the time, there was absolutely nothing significant about Oswald or the package. (A homely analogy, but I've played golf with my good friend at least 50 times. I couldn't tell you if his putter is 36" or 30".)
This is not how Conspiracy Think works. Frazier’s and Randle’s observations are dispositive. Oswald was carrying a package too short to be the rifle, period. From this, Conspiracy Think spirals off in both directions – i.e., whether Oswald owned a rifle at all, who removed it from the Paine garage and planted it in the TSBD if he did, yada yada.
It’s irrational, but it’s what those prone to the conspiracy mindset do – simple as that. This mindset has been established in a vast body of psychological and sociological research. It’s the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss. The answer to those who treat Frazier and Randle as dispositive is, “You aren’t thinking clearly” – simple as that. THAT is the elephant in the room: You are thinking the way that those prone to the conspiracy mindset think. It isn't the mere fact that you believe the JFKA was a conspiracy that establishes this. It's the games you play with the evidence and the irrational inferences you draw that establish this.
Poor old Earlene Roberts? Well, at the WC she repeatedly used the phrase “didn’t pay much attention,” specifically in regard to Oswald’s coming and going, because she was understandably preoccupied with the JFKA news on TV and her problem with the TV’s reception. She also stated she was “completely blind in my right eye.” The day of the assassination, she described a “short gray coat,” then later a “dark” zipper jacket or coat. Here in the Real World, these are simply facts to be taken into consideration in assessing her contribution to the identification of the jacket found in connection with the Tippit murder. Nothing more nor less. There is nothing dispositive, or essential to the identification of the jacket, about anything she said.
-
Once again, we are provided with a textbook lesson in Conspiracy Think.
Frazier and Randle insisted the package they saw was several inches shorter than a disassembled Carcano. It would have been nice for the WC narrative if they could have been convinced, coerced or intimidated into changing their stories, but they were firm. Randle in particular was impressive in regard to the package.
Here in the Real World, we take account of the circumstances under which they saw the package, how much attention they paid and how different their observations were from what they would have seen if Oswald had been carrying the disassembled Carcano (6.3” in the case of Randle, 28.5" vs. 34.8"). If Frazier and Randle had been firm that Oswald was carrying an ordinary little lunch sack, the WC would have had, and the LN narrative would have, a much more significant problem. As it was, they established a longish, stiff package.
We factor what Frazier and Randle observed into the totality of the circumstances, from the purchase of the rifle to its storage in the Paine garage; to Oswald’s curious Thursday trip and curtain rod explanation; to the rifle being found in the TSBD and identified as the assassination weapon. The rational conclusion is that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken regarding the length, which is entirely understandable given the circumstances under which they saw the package and how much attention they would have paid; at the time, there was absolutely nothing significant about Oswald or the package. (A homely analogy, but I've played golf with my good friend at least 50 times. I couldn't tell you if his putter is 36" or 30".)
This is not how Conspiracy Think works. Frazier’s and Randle’s observations are dispositive. Oswald was carrying a package too short to be the rifle, period. From this, Conspiracy Think spirals off in both directions – i.e., whether Oswald owned a rifle at all, who removed it from the Paine garage and planted it in the TSBD if he did, yada yada.
It’s irrational, but it’s what those prone to the conspiracy mindset do – simple as that. This mindset has been established in a vast body of psychological and sociological research. It’s the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss. The answer to those who treat Frazier and Randle as dispositive is, “You aren’t thinking clearly” – simple as that. THAT is the elephant in the room: You are thinking the way that those prone to the conspiracy mindset think. It isn't the mere fact that you believe the JFKA was a conspiracy that establishes this. It's the games you play with the evidence and the irrational inferences you draw that establish this.
Poor old Earlene Roberts? Well, at the WC she repeatedly used the phrase “didn’t pay much attention,” specifically in regard to Oswald’s coming and going, because she was understandably preoccupied with the JFKA news on TV and her problem with the TV’s reception. She also stated she was “completely blind in my right eye.” The day of the assassination, she described a “short gray coat,” then later a “dark” zipper jacket or coat. Here in the Real World, these are simply facts to be taken into consideration in assessing her contribution to the identification of the jacket found in connection with the Tippit murder. Nothing more nor less. There is nothing dispositive, or essential to the identification of the jacket, about anything she said.
What he said; yada yada.
Frazier and Randle insisted the package they saw was several inches shorter than a disassembled Carcano. It would have been nice for the WC narrative if they could have been convinced, coerced or intimidated into changing their stories, but they were firm. Randle in particular was impressive in regard to the package.
Here in the Real World, we take account of the circumstances under which they saw the package, how much attention they paid and how different their observations were from what they would have seen if Oswald had been carrying the disassembled Carcano (6.3” in the case of Randle, 28.5" vs. 34.8"). If Frazier and Randle had been firm that Oswald was carrying an ordinary little lunch sack, the WC would have had, and the LN narrative would have, a much more significant problem. As it was, they established a longish, stiff package.
We factor what Frazier and Randle observed into the totality of the circumstances, from the purchase of the rifle to its storage in the Paine garage; to Oswald’s curious Thursday trip and curtain rod explanation; to the rifle being found in the TSBD and identified as the assassination weapon. The rational conclusion is that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken regarding the length, which is entirely understandable given the circumstances under which they saw the package and how much attention they would have paid; at the time, there was absolutely nothing significant about Oswald or the package.
Look at him, making excuses to avoid having to deal with what the only two witnesses, who saw the bag, actually said and assuming "facts" not in evidence while speculating about the reason for Oswald's trip, which is only curious in a LN mind.
The whole thing is hot air being described as a "rational conclusion". Where a witness can indeed be mistaken about an estimate of length, it's just about impossible to be mistaken about the way Oswald carried the package (in the cup of his hand and under his armpit). That's why the LNs never ever talk about that description.
In the real world you don't dismiss the statements of the only two witnesses when there is not a shred of evidence that even remotely suggests they could be wrong. In the real world you let the available evidence guide you to a conclusion and you don't dismiss evidence because it does not fit a predetermined conclusion!
Poor old Earlene Roberts? Well, at the WC she repeatedly used the phrase “didn’t pay much attention,” specifically in regard to Oswald’s coming and going, because she was understandably preoccupied with the JFKA news on TV and her problem with the TV’s reception. She also stated she was “completely blind in my right eye.” The day of the assassination, she described a “short gray coat,” then later a “dark” zipper jacket or coat. Here in the Real World, these are simply facts to be taken into consideration in assessing her contribution to the identification of the jacket found in connection with the Tippit murder. Nothing more nor less. There is nothing dispositive, or essential to the identification of the jacket, about anything she said.
It seems that the only thing "essential to the identification of the jacket" is that Roberts remembered a zipper.
Never mind that there isn't even evidence that the grey jacket was actually at the rooming house on Friday and there is evidence that it may well not have been!
-
Your selective quoting of Rose is a typical CT tactic, here's the entire relevant quote where Oswald says his name is "Hidell", which for a start makes your conspiracy theory that Oswald never knew about the alias "Hidell" seriously flawed. LOL
So with the fact that Oswald admitted to the Hidell alias, there is really no need to continue because the only reason you are questioning the wallet is the Hidell ID which was provably in the Wallet and was connected to Oswald because Oswald himself admitted to "Hidell" LOL
"Cop said so", therefore "fact". LOL.
By the way, this is the same Gus Rose who helped to frame Randall Dale Adams.
-
By the way, stating as a fact that the wallet must include a driver's license just because Bentley was listing simple generic terms for items often found inside a wallet (early reports which are often wrong) must mean one also believes a secret service agent was killed in Dealey Plaza (early reports) and that a cop was killed inside the theater (early reports).
It's hilarious the way that the LN-faithful appeal to "cop said so", until cop says something that doesn't fit. Then it's "generic", or "figure of speech", or "early reports" or some other lame excuse.
-
What sort of individual(s) find(s) it a worthwhile and productive use of time to post virtually nothing but snarky, non-substantive one-liners on an obscure JFKA forum would certainly make for an interesting psychological study.
What does that say about the sort of individual who finds it a worthwhile and productive use of time to post virtually nothing but snarky, non-substantive, repetitive, lengthy screeds and strawman arguments along with egotistical bragging about himself on an obscure JFKA forum?
-
LOL. If "Martin" from "Europe" who doesn't understand the metric system wants to prove me wrong, how about addressing the significant problems noted with the individual possibilities? Or perhaps account what happened to Tippit's citation book?
How do you know Tippit had a "citation book"?
-
The Hidell ID was forensically analysed to be signed by Oswald, the template of the fake ID was found in Oswald's possessions and Oswald admitted to Rose that his "name" was Hidell.
"Forensically analysed". LOL
"template of the fake ID". LOL
"Oswald's possessions". LOL
"admitted to Rose". LOL
-
It is indeed classic Conspiracy Think. Every discrepancy becomes a "conspiracy fact" in the minds of these characters. If one witness says the car was purple, one says red and one says maroon - voila, three cars were fleeing from the scene and the routine hit-and-run becomes a mysterious conspiracy! These peoples' minds simply cannot be penetrated by rational thought. One can only observe the mysterious workings and marvel that they somehow function in the real world. It is ABSOLUTELY like attempting to discuss an issue with a Flat Earther, Fake Moon Landing fanatic, or any species of hardcore religious fundamentalist. Been there, done that. At some level, deep down, I have to believe they know they are spouting nonsense, but the desire to believe transcends rational thought.
"Rational thought" is LN-speak for making up contrived excuses to handwave away any and all contradictions and discrepancies in order to fit their faith-based narrative.
-
Yes, Frazier's testimony was what first alerted me to this CT game. The number of times he said "I really wasn't paying much attention" literally leaps off the page. Then we factor in the reality that there was utterly no reason for him to have been paying much attention. Yet it is now conspiracy gospel that Oswald was carrying a package tucked under his armpit that was too short to be the rifle.
And the LN game is to ignore what the only two witnesses to see the package said about it and go with "it must have contained a disassembled Carcano, because what else could it have been?"
-
And many other eyewitnesses at the Tippit crime scene remembered Oswald wearing a grey/tan jacket, and at the Texas Theater when Oswald was photographed outside, he had NO jacket. Oops!
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
"Mytton's" dishonest quote mining is a wonder to behold.
Mr. BELIN - I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as "Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears any similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say this looks just like it. Looks like he had laundried it, but it looks like it was a newer coat than that.
CE 163 was a blue jacket, not a tan or gray jacket.
-
We factor what Frazier and Randle observed into the totality of the circumstances, from the purchase of the rifle to its storage in the Paine garage; to Oswald’s curious Thursday trip and curtain rod explanation; to the rifle being found in the TSBD and identified as the assassination weapon. The rational conclusion is that Frazier and Randle were simply mistaken regarding the length, which is entirely understandable given the circumstances under which they saw the package and how much attention they would have paid; at the time, there was absolutely nothing significant about Oswald or the package. (A homely analogy, but I've played golf with my good friend at least 50 times. I couldn't tell you if his putter is 36" or 30".)
A textbook example of changing the evidence to fit the desired conclusion. Never mind that there is ZERO evidence the Carcano was disassembled, or that it was in the Paine garage, or that it was ever identified as the assassination weapon.
We can weave a creative story about it, therefore it's "logical".
-
(A homely analogy, but I've played golf with my good friend at least 50 times. I couldn't tell you if his putter is 36" or 30".)
Ask him to tuck it under his arm while cupped in his palm.
...like a curtain rod.
-
Those of us who have been part of this community for years (and didn't just stumble upon it recently and immediately dive in with insufferable ego-driven lawyer rhetoric) remember Arjan Hut very well. He was the author of the brilliant "Erasing the Past to Protect a Fairytale" series -- a list of hundreds of items of JFK assassination evidence that are "missing" or "withheld".
-
Gerald Hill was interviewed on the day of the arrest and said, “The only way we found out what his name was, was to remove his billfold and check it ourselves; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was.” Later in the interview a reporter asked, “What was the name on the billfold?” Hill replied, “Lee H. Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D”. No mention of Hidell. Why not?
Iacoletti,
Question: Did the reporter ask Hill, "What were the names (plural) on the billfold?"?
Answer: No, he asked, "What was the name (singular) on the billfold?"
Question: Did Hill answer the reporter's question?
Answer: Yes, he did.
Why is that a problem for you?
-
Those of us who have been part of this community for years (and didn't just stumble upon it recently and immediately dive in with insufferable ego-driven lawyer rhetoric) remember Arjan Hut very well. He was the author of the brilliant "Erasing the Past to Protect a Fairytale" series -- a list of hundreds of items of JFK assassination evidence that are "missing" or "withheld".
Yeah, but John, don't forget he lives in the same "one-hour-east-of-the-UK time zone" (which people who know, simply call GMT + 1) as me, where btw most of the EU countries are, so in Lance's very confused mind I must be him.
Give Lance a break, I'm sure he is convinced that he knows what he is doing :D
I'll be in the Netherlands from 13 to 18 May. I can try to contact Arjan and ask him to give a shout out to Lance. ;)
-
The swami makes no accusations and is convinced of nothing. The swami merely observes.
The swami, like others before him, observes that dishonest identity games are seemingly being played on this forum. The swami observes that the persona "Tom Sorensen," ostensibly an Administrator at the obscure and largely inactive JFKBoards.net, seemingly is or was one of the participants in these games. Since being exposed by the swami as an apparent sock puppet of the persona "Martin Weidmann," the "Sorensen" persona has gone poof like others before him.
The swami observes that one Michael Capasse, also an Administrator at the obscure site, and the persona "Martin Weidmann," together with the persona "Tom Sorensen," share a near-identity of views about both the JFKA and U.S. politics, use nearly identical terminology and ad hominem style, and repeatedly congratulate each other on their posts, often with simply an inane Thumb1:.
The swami observes that "Weidmann" is an obscure name in the U.S. but happens to be one of the leading beer brands of United Dutch Breweries. The swami observes that yet another Administrator at the obscure site, one Arjan Hut, happens to reside in the Netherlands. The swami observes that when the persona "Martin Weidman" recently corrected his time zone, he placed himself in the same time zone as Mr. Hut. Merely observations, not accusations.
The swami observes that when the above observations have been voiced, the persona "Martin Weidmann" rather carefully avoids dealing with them head-on and instead focuses on irrelevancies (GMT+1!) or attempts deflection such as suggesting that the swami is himself somehow a sock puppet of John Mytton.
The swami suspects that he has uncovered merely the tip of a veritable sock puppet iceberg, but he does not know this and makes no accusations. He merely observes.
What is fascinating to the swami is why anyone would play the games that are seemingly being played. The swami discovered that, long before his arrival, Mr. Mytton had referred to the efforts of the "Martin" persona and one of his sock puppets as "tag teaming," which seems as good a description as any - but why? To what purpose? Is this driven by some sort of deep insecurity, perhaps?
The swami is disappointed that a forum is allowed to operate in this dishonest manner, but he makes no accusations. He merely observes. If those who are playing the game - and playing it so badly - derive some mysterious satisfaction, perhaps the swami should just observe and be happy for them.
Here is a serious scholarly study of sock puppetry: "An Army of Me: Sock Puppets in Online Discussion Communities," https://cs.stanford.edu/~srijan/pubs/sockpuppets-www2017.pdf. The abstract is interesting in relation to what the swami observes here.
ABSTRACT
In online discussion communities, users can interact and share information and opinions on a wide variety of topics. However, some users may create multiple identities, or sockpuppets, and engage in undesired behavior by deceiving others or manipulating discussions. In this work, we study sockpuppetry across nine discussion communities, and show that sockpuppets differ from ordinary users in terms of their posting behavior, linguistic traits, as well as social network structure. Sockpuppets tend to start fewer discussions, write shorter posts, use more personal pronouns such as “I”, and have more clustered ego-networks. Further, pairs of sockpuppets controlled by the same individual are more likely to interact on the same discussion at the same time than pairs of ordinary users. Our analysis suggests a taxonomy of deceptive behavior in discussion communities. Pairs of sockpuppets can vary in their deceptiveness, i.e., whether they pretend to be different users, or their supportiveness, i.e., if they support arguments of other sockpuppets controlled by the same user.
-
Those of us who have been part of this community for years (and didn't just stumble upon it recently and immediately dive in with insufferable ego-driven lawyer rhetoric) remember Arjan Hut very well. He was the author of the brilliant "Erasing the Past to Protect a Fairytale" series -- a list of hundreds of items of JFK assassination evidence that are "missing" or "withheld".
Thumb1: Still going strong. 580 items. Nearly a half a million page views. (477k+)
https://jfk.boards.net/post/460
-
Oh boy, this guy is really fu**ed up
Be assured that the swami is neither fubbed up, fudded up, funned up, fussed up nor fuzzed up.
The swami is, in fact, so entirely non-fubbed-up that he does not feel the need for fake names, sock puppets, boring and dull ad hominem attacks, tedious one-liners or the use of inane emojis like Thumb1: and BS:.
The swami, like the Dude, abides.
You and Team Sock Puppet do realize, of course, that you are participants in a latter-day Monty Python skit? Failure to realize this and accept one's role can have adverse effects on one's health. Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.
-
Be assured that the swami is neither fubbed up, fudded up, funned up, fussed up nor fuzzed up.
The swami is, in fact, so entirely non-fubbed-up that he does not feel the need for fake names, sock puppets, boring and dull ad hominem attacks, tedious one-liners or the use of inane emojis like Thumb1: and BS:.
The swami, like the Dude, abides.
You and Team Sock Puppet do realize, of course, that you are participants in a latter-day Monty Python skit? Failure to realize this and accept one's role can have adverse effects on one's health. Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.
You and Team Sock Puppet
Only in your delusional mind.
For a guy who claims to be (or have been) a lawyer and should be used to dealing with facts, you are clearly losing the plot.
-
The swami observes that one Michael Capasse, also an Administrator at the obscure site, and the persona "Martin Weidmann," together with the persona "Tom Sorensen," share a near-identity of views about both the JFKA and U.S. politics, use nearly identical terminology and ad hominem style, and repeatedly congratulate each other on their posts, often with simply an inane Thumb1:.
Really? ::)
Then the "swami" should consider every LN-faithful WC-regurgitator to be the same person as well. Or maybe the "swami" is just special-pleading yet again.
It's people like "John Mytton" and "Richard Smith" who cowardly hide behind fake names here, not the skeptics.