JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Fred Litwin on June 16, 2026, 02:35:09 PM
-
CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton
-
WC defenders do not want to acknowledge that someone planted a fake "Oswald" wallet, complete with a fake Hidell ID card, at the Tippit murder scene. They reject this scenario even though former FBI Special Agent Robert Barrett insisted that an Oswald wallet with both Oswald ID and fake Hidell ID was found at the Tippit scene, and even though Barrett clearly recalled that he was asked if he knew who Oswald or Hidell was by the policeman who was examining the wallet. Exactly how would Barrett be "mistaken" about these things?
In addition, former FBI Special Agent James Hosty confirmed that Barrett told him about the finding of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene. Let me guess: Hosty was "mistaken" too!
Furthermore, there is news footage of policemen examining a wallet right next to Tippit's patrol car.
Dale Myers says that although the wallet in the news footage resembles Oswald's arrest wallet in a number of features, "photographs show that the Oswald arrest wallet is not the same billfold" that's seen in the news footage. Umm, no, photos show no such thing.
Myers argues that the metal band on the arrest wallet's leather flap is not quite the same as the band on the news film wallet's flap, and that the arrest wallet's leather flap is shaped slightly differently than the leather flap of the wallet in the news film. On their face, these are mighty thin reeds on which to base an argument.
The photos in question by no means clearly establish either of these claims. It is hard to make out the exact length and shape of the metal band on the flap of the news film wallet. Allowing for a modest amount of sun reflection and the somewhat grainy nature of the news film, the news footage wallet's metal band might very well be identical to the arrest wallet's metal band.
As for the argument about the length of the bands, Myers fails to consider the fact that in the photo of the arrest wallet the flap is lying down flat and is apparently snapped shut, whereas in the news film the wallet's flap is unsnapped and partially up. Also, the top left edge of the news film wallet's flap is somewhat obscured by a plastic photo sleeve beneath it, and it is hard to determine the exact shape of the other edge of the flap because of the grainy nature of the news film, because of the camera angle, and because the flap is up and not lying flat. The two flaps look to me like they could very well be identical. For that matter, the wallets look identical in size and in all of their essential features. Just a whopping coincidence, I'm sure.
The fact remains that former Special Agent Barrett insisted an Oswald wallet with both Oswald ID and fake Hidell ID was found at the Tippit scene, and that Barrett clearly recalled that he was asked if he knew who Oswald or Hidell was by the policeman who was examining the wallet.
The fact also remains that Special Agent Hosty confirmed that Barrett told him about the finding of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene.
The fact further remains that there is news film footage of policemen examining a wallet right next to Tippit's patrol car. Are we supposed to believe that it's just a remarkable coincidence that a wallet was found next to Tippit's car?
The Dallas police said they found Oswald's "real" wallet on his person while they were driving him to the police station. Huh? Really? How would that have worked? Think about how weird and awkward it would have been for a policeman to be reaching his hands under Oswald's butt to feel if he had anything in his rear pockets or to be sticking his hands in Oswald's front pockets. Surely the police searched Oswald when they arrested him at the theater and most certainly would have found the wallet on his person if he'd had it with him.
-
MTG-
Yes, I agree with you that the LHO-Hidell wallet seen in the grainy black-and-white Tippit murder newsreel sure looks like LHO's wallet, and Myers leans on evidence to say that it is, in fact, just another wallet.
LNT'ers also strain the evidence to their inclinations.
What are the odds that a wallet so similar to the LHO-Hidell wallet was found, and closely reviewed, at the site of the Tippit murder? It was not Tippit's wallet, that has been established. So whose wallet was it? No one has ever said another person's wallet was found at the scene.
You are correct that the FBI guys stated that the LHO-Hidell wallet had been found at the Tippit murder scene.
One possibility: The DPD removed LHO's wallet from his back pocket when they arrested him. They then took the wallet to the scene of the Tippit murder, either to help in the Tippit investigation, or to plant it, not as part of the JFKA plot, but as they wanted to make sure a cop-killer went to the chair.
The LHO-Hidell wallet at the Tippit murder scene sure is an odd tale. I would bet 10-to-1 the wallet in the newsreel is in fact LHO's wallet. How it got there, I do not know.
-
Allen Dulles phones up Jesse Curry 😅
-
Westbrook testified that he returned directly to the police station after Oswald was arrested in the theater (he didn’t arrive in his own car). So Barret’s account of Westbrook flipping through the wallet and asking him if he knew Hidell or Oswald couldn’t have happened at 10th and Patton.
Mr. BALL. Now, what did you do after that [arrest at theater]?
Mr. WESTBROOK. I went back to the city hall and resumed my desk.
-
Westbrook testified that he returned directly to the police station after Oswald was arrested in the theater (he didn’t arrive in his own car). So Barret’s account of Westbrook flipping through the wallet and asking him if he knew Hidell or Oswald couldn’t have happened at 10th and Patton.
Mr. BALL. Now, what did you do after that [arrest at theater]?
Mr. WESTBROOK. I went back to the city hall and resumed my desk.
This doesn't make any sense. Westbrook was at the Tippit scene before he went to the Texas Theater. So, if Barrett was indeed asked, by Westbrook, if he knew Hidell or Oswald it would have been before the arrest and it would have to involve another wallet than the one that was taken from Oswald in the car by Bentley.
But there is more to this story!
After Bentley took Oswald's wallet, he did not mention Hidell at all, which is strange because Gerald Hill testified that he told Bentley to grab the suspect's wallet for the purpose of identification. During a television interview Bentley was asked about the content of the wallet and he basically said there were only items in it that one would expect. I believe he mentioned a driver's license and a credit car, which by itself is strange. Also, there isn't any contemporary report by any of the officers in the car with Oswald that mentions finding a Hidell ID. Only during his WC testimony did Gerald Hill, who was sitting with Bentley (who was never asked to testify) on either side of Oswald on the rear seat of the car - say something like that he vaguely remembered hearing the name Hidell.
When Bentley arrived at the police station with Oswald, he was instantly taken to the hospital because of an injury to his leg. There isn't a single person in the police station that we know of, who confirmed or could confirm what happened to the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald. And this is where it gets complicated, because soon after Oswald was brought into the station, Gus Rose arrived after having been called in. He was the first DPD officer to speak to Oswald and just before that conversation took place an unidentified officer gave Rose a wallet and said it belonged to the suspect. And guess what, in that wallet there were two ID's, one for Oswald and one for Hidell.
So what's a possible explanation for this confusion? Could it be that Westbrook, after being present at Oswald's arrest, returned to the police station and told this unidentified officer to give the wallet that was found at the Tippit scene to Detective Rose? Obviously, in this scenario, the wallet Bentley took from Oswald would have to disappear and Bentley could never testify.
I believe it is possible that this is way the wallet with the Hidell ID was introduced as evidence, but if somebody can give be a better explanation or - even better - a solid chain of custody for the Bentley wallet, I'll gladly reconsider my opinion.
-
WC defenders do not want to acknowledge that someone planted a fake "Oswald" wallet, complete with a fake Hidell ID card, at the Tippit murder scene. They reject this scenario even though former FBI Special Agent Robert Barrett insisted that an Oswald wallet with both Oswald ID and fake Hidell ID was found at the Tippit scene, and even though Barrett clearly recalled that he was asked if he knew who Oswald or Hidell was by the policeman who was examining the wallet. Exactly how would Barrett be "mistaken" about these things?
In addition, former FBI Special Agent James Hosty confirmed that Barrett told him about the finding of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene. Let me guess: Hosty was "mistaken" too!
Furthermore, there is news footage of policemen examining a wallet right next to Tippit's patrol car.
Dale Myers says that although the wallet in the news footage resembles Oswald's arrest wallet in a number of features, "photographs show that the Oswald arrest wallet is not the same billfold" that's seen in the news footage. Umm, no, photos show no such thing.
Myers argues that the metal band on the arrest wallet's leather flap is not quite the same as the band on the news film wallet's flap, and that the arrest wallet's leather flap is shaped slightly differently than the leather flap of the wallet in the news film. On their face, these are mighty thin reeds on which to base an argument.
The photos in question by no means clearly establish either of these claims. It is hard to make out the exact length and shape of the metal band on the flap of the news film wallet. Allowing for a modest amount of sun reflection and the somewhat grainy nature of the news film, the news footage wallet's metal band might very well be identical to the arrest wallet's metal band.
As for the argument about the length of the bands, Myers fails to consider the fact that in the photo of the arrest wallet the flap is lying down flat and is apparently snapped shut, whereas in the news film the wallet's flap is unsnapped and partially up. Also, the top left edge of the news film wallet's flap is somewhat obscured by a plastic photo sleeve beneath it, and it is hard to determine the exact shape of the other edge of the flap because of the grainy nature of the news film, because of the camera angle, and because the flap is up and not lying flat. The two flaps look to me like they could very well be identical. For that matter, the wallets look identical in size and in all of their essential features. Just a whopping coincidence, I'm sure.
The fact remains that former Special Agent Barrett insisted an Oswald wallet with both Oswald ID and fake Hidell ID was found at the Tippit scene, and that Barrett clearly recalled that he was asked if he knew who Oswald or Hidell was by the policeman who was examining the wallet.
The fact also remains that Special Agent Hosty confirmed that Barrett told him about the finding of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene.
The fact further remains that there is news film footage of policemen examining a wallet right next to Tippit's patrol car. Are we supposed to believe that it's just a remarkable coincidence that a wallet was found next to Tippit's car?
The Dallas police said they found Oswald's "real" wallet on his person while they were driving him to the police station. Huh? Really? How would that have worked? Think about how weird and awkward it would have been for a policeman to be reaching his hands under Oswald's butt to feel if he had anything in his rear pockets or to be sticking his hands in Oswald's front pockets. Surely the police searched Oswald when they arrested him at the theater and most certainly would have found the wallet on his person if he'd had it with him.
The old planted wallet story always makes me laugh. Imagine a plot to frame Oswald that involves planting his wallet at the Tippit murder scene. Fantastic evidence that puts him at the crime scene. Score one for the conspirators. But what do these masterminds do? They suppress the planted wallet. Why? Because Oswald has his real wallet on him when arrested. HA HA HA. Something any child could have anticipated but the conspirators are caught by surprise. And then given the choice of which wallet to suppress, they decide the suppress the more incriminating wallet left at the crime scene! Wow.
-
The old planted wallet story always makes me laugh. Imagine a plot to frame Oswald that involves planting his wallet at the Tippit murder scene. Fantastic evidence that puts him at the crime scene. Score one for the conspirators. But what do these masterminds do? They suppress the planted wallet. Why? Because Oswald has his real wallet on him when arrested. HA HA HA. Something any child could have anticipated but the conspirators are caught by surprise. And then given the choice of which wallet to suppress, they decide the suppress the more incriminating wallet left at the crime scene! Wow.
Richard, you're just no fun. If you insist on thinking logically, what are we going to do with you? Take a week off, binge-watch Three Stooges episodes on YouTube, and get back to us when you're ready to think outside the box of rationality.
-
Richard, you're just no fun. If you insist on thinking logically, what are we going to do with you? Take a week off, binge-watch Three Stooges episodes on YouTube, and get back to us when you're ready to think outside the box of rationality.
What would be a logical explanation for Bentley not mentioning Hidell when he took the wallet from Oswald in order to identify him. What is a logical explanation for the lack of a chain of custody for that wallet and how can it be logically explained that an - until this day - unidentified police officer ended up with a wallet, which he gave to Gus Rose, that did contain the Hidell ID? How did that officer even know it was Oswald's wallet?
-
Here is an article from CBS8 in Dallas re the LHO-Hidell wallet:
Wallet mystery from Officer Tippit's murder settled after 50 years
Evidence from a variety of sources including vintage WFAA news film may provide the proof that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit after President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.
Author: WFAA Staff and WFAA.com (WFAA)
Published: 8:09 PM PST November 20, 2013
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.
---30---
Well, like everything in the JFKA, clear as mud.
-
Most likely it's Tippit's citation book. A logical thing for the investigators to do is look through it to see if perhaps he wrote down the name or license plate number before being shot. It makes no sense for the conspirators to suppress a wallet they planted at the crime the scene to frame Oswald. It also makes no sense for the police to suppress an Oswald wallet left at the scene where it would be highly incriminating and instead claim it was found during his arrest. The double wallet explanation for suppressing any crime scene wallet makes no sense because the conspirators should have anticipated that Oswald would have his wallet when arrested or killed. They would have to be baked into the plan.
-
Most likely it's Tippit's citation book.
Garbage. They would have said that.
-
Most likely it's Tippit's citation book. A logical thing for the investigators to do is look through it to see if perhaps he wrote down the name or license plate number before being shot. It makes no sense for the conspirators to suppress a wallet they planted at the crime the scene to frame Oswald. It also makes no sense for the police to suppress an Oswald wallet left at the scene where it would be highly incriminating and instead claim it was found during his arrest. The double wallet explanation for suppressing any crime scene wallet makes no sense because the conspirators should have anticipated that Oswald would have his wallet when arrested or killed. They would have to be baked into the plan.
Most likely it's Tippit's citation book.
It has been established some time ago that it isn't. Besides Barrett said it was a wallet!
It makes no sense for the conspirators to suppress a wallet they planted at the crime the scene to frame Oswald.
That would indeed make no sense, but nobody is suggesting that is what happened.
-
Most likely it's Tippit's citation book.
It has been established some time ago that it isn't. Besides Barrett said it was a wallet!
It makes no sense for the conspirators to suppress a wallet they planted at the crime the scene to frame Oswald.
That would indeed make no sense, but nobody is suggesting that is what happened.
"It has been established" because someone said it was so! Wow. Imagine applying that standard to the other evidence that links Oswald to the assassination. Most of which you reject. How about spinning us a yarn that explains why the folks who are involved in framing Oswald suppress a highly incriminating piece of evidence left at the murder scene?
-
Garbage. They would have said that.
That's bizarre logic. Did "they" say it was Oswald's wallet and they were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence? It is truly comedy gold that CTers who otherwise reject all evidence linking Oswald to the crime insist that his wallet was left at the Tippit murder scene and that the same investigators who are involved in framing him suppress this highly incriminating piece of evidence. It's mind blowing.
-
Did "they" say it was Oswald's wallet....
Thumb1: As a matter of fact one cop did;
https://jfk.boards.net/post/4553
"First on the scene recovered Oswald's wallet there too."
" K H Croy Sgt. Kenneth Croy DPD Reservve #86"(?)
-
"It has been established" because someone said it was so! Wow. Imagine applying that standard to the other evidence that links Oswald to the assassination. Most of which you reject. How about spinning us a yarn that explains why the folks who are involved in framing Oswald suppress a highly incriminating piece of evidence left at the murder scene?
Interesting that you ignored the fact that Barrett said it was a wallet.
why the folks who are involved in framing Oswald suppress a highly incriminating piece of evidence left at the murder scene?
You keep repeating this BS when you've already been told that nobody claims that a wallet found at a murder scene was suppressed.
If a wallet was suppressed it was the one taken from Oswald in the car by Bentley.
-
After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports.
Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).
Think about it.
-
After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports.
Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).
Think about it.
I did think about it. In Westbrook's office (or the lunchroom nearby) the gray jacket was marked by officers who were never part of the chain of custody. Officers who actually did handle the jacket at the car park did not mark it and they remain unidentified until this day. The revolver that Hill brought into the station and allegedly carried around with him for more than one hour wasn't marked by the officer who allegedly took it from Oswald and Hill could not positively confirm the revolver came from Oswald as he was only given the weapon in the car that took Oswald to the police station and was told that it belonged to Oswald. So much for the reliability of those officers.
There is no evidence that the wallet Bentley took from Oswald contained the Hidell identification and there is also no evidence that the wallet given to Gus Rose, by yet another unidentified officer, was the same one as the one Bentley took from Oswald.
I have found no record stating that Barrett was in Westbrook's office and that a wallet was there.
You are making statements you can not support with evidence!
-
Not the wallet at the Tippit crime scene again? Yawn.
Why plant a wallet then refuse to use it as evidence?? This scenario doesn't make a lick of sense, well, not to any sane rational person.
JohnM
-
In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun around, 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 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 approaches and 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 around, 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 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 approaches and 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
Bingo! We have a winner.
-
Not the wallet at the Tippit crime scene again? Yawn.
Why plant a wallet then refuse to use it as evidence?? This scenario doesn't make a lick of sense, well, not to any sane rational person.
JohnM
But a rational sane person would have understood by now that the wallet from the Tippit scene wasn't the one that was suppressed.
There is no chain of custody for the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car. It simply vanished.
Why did none of the officers in the car with Oswald mention (in any report) finding a Hidell ID in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald for the sole purpose to identify him?
Who was the unidentified officer who gave a wallet to Gus Rose and claimed it belonged to Oswald?
Gus Rose found the Hidell ID straight away, but Bentley overlooked it.... is that what we are supposed to believe?
-
In this video of the wallet at the Tippit crime scene, the cop with the wallet is randomly waving his gun around, 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 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 approaches and 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
Not this same BS again!
You are guessing and completely ignoring that Barrett said it was a wallet that had ID's of Oswald and Hidell in it.
This is classic LN crap. Not accepting anything that doesn't fit with the narrative and come up with all sorts of wacky excuses to muddy the water.
-
The key fact that stands out to me about Barrett's claim--which is where it started--is that he never mentioned it until the mid-1990s. No one did. No one mentioned or breathed a word of having seen an Oswald wallet at the scene for over thirty years! That does not pass the smell test of it being Oswald's wallet, which would have been extremely memorable and the wallet logged into evidence with the Crime Scene personnel (Doughty and Barnes) right there at the scene. But it wasn't, and nobody ever heard of that being Oswald's wallet for another thirty years, because it wasn't. Croy's signature saying he found Oswald's wallet turned up posthumously and he never mentioned anything of the kind in his lifetime. If he did come to believe that at the time he wrote that photo inscription--and was not writing it as a joke--he may have become convinced it was but nothing in his reported memories of that wallet confirmed or supported that it was Oswald's.
The wallet is in the hand of an officer holding Tippit's revolver, and there is a report of Callaway being divested of Tippit's revolver at gunpoint in a confrontation, following which that revolver and Callaway and Scoggins returned to the crime scene. It is very reasonable that the two men who took the Tippit revolver from Callaway demanded his wallet, or Scoggins', one of those two, as "security" before allowing them to drive separately back to the crime scene. The wallet was then given to police at the scene with the Tippit revolver, police checked it, realized Callaway and Scoggins were innocent, and the wallet was returned as of no further relevance or interest in the crime case, which is why it was not logged in as evidence. If Callaway didn't volunteer that detail in later years it would be because he is known to have been sore and sensitive about the embarrassment of that confrontation, which would be the background on that. The similarity in appearance to Oswald's wallet would be attributed to coincidence as being a common type of man's wallet sold.
Barrett thirty years later may have confused his memory in when and where Westbrook asked him that day about the names of Oswald and Hidell. Myers makes a good case for that as the explanation. But another possibility is the case against Oswald on Tippit was actually weaker than it has been popularly supposed, and for all we know Barrett could have planted that Oswald wallet story as intent to shore it up by introducing a new smoking-gun incrimination of Oswald that would remove any doubt (if there was any). (He told fellow FBI agent Hosty who believed Barrett and published it in Hosty's book, is how Barrett launched it.)
Barrett is the same FBI agent who was a witness of Oswald's arrest and later told Myers with a straight face that the way Oswald got his bruised black eye was Oswald had swung his face into the hand of an officer, giving himself a black eye by assaulting the officer's hand with his eye, lol. That's an aside, sorry. The relevant point is one cannot take seriously incriminating evidence newly introduced from memory for the first time 30 years later, that nobody at the crime scene at the time ever heard of (referring to Oswald ID). This is how urban legends start, which is what this one is.
If there were earlier or contemporary credible witness reports of Oswald ID in that wallet, that would be a different matter. But this story starts for the first time 30 years later. And the wallet wasn't handed in as evidence at the crime scene on the day of the crime, and it is seen in the WFAA-TV film in the same officer's hand as the Tippit revolver which associates it with the hostile at-gunpoint confrontation with Callaway in the obtaining of that gun (and probably Callaways's wallet too).
-
The key fact that stands out to me about Barrett's claim--which is where it started--is that he never mentioned it until the mid-1990s. No one did. No one mentioned or breathed a word of having seen an Oswald wallet at the scene for over thirty years! That does not pass the smell test of it being Oswald's wallet, which would have been extremely memorable and the wallet logged into evidence with the Crime Scene personnel (Doughty and Barnes) right there at the scene. But it wasn't, and nobody ever heard of that being Oswald's wallet for another thirty years, because it wasn't. Croy's signature saying he found Oswald's wallet turned up posthumously and he never mentioned anything of the kind in his lifetime. If he did come to believe that at the time he wrote that photo inscription--and was not writing it as a joke--he may have become convinced it was but nothing in his reported memories of that wallet confirmed or supported that it was Oswald's.
The wallet is in the hand of an officer holding Tippit's revolver, and there is a report of Callaway being divested of Tippit's revolver at gunpoint in a confrontation, following which that revolver and Callaway and Scoggins returned to the crime scene. It is very reasonable that the two men who took the Tippit revolver from Callaway demanded his wallet, or Scoggins', one of those two, as "security" before allowing them to drive separately back to the crime scene. The wallet was then given to police at the scene with the Tippit revolver, police checked it, realized Callaway and Scoggins were innocent, and the wallet was returned as of no further relevance or interest in the crime case, which is why it was not logged in as evidence. If Callaway didn't volunteer that detail in later years it would be because he is known to have been sore and sensitive about the embarrassment of that confrontation, which would be the background on that. The similarity in appearance to Oswald's wallet would be attributed to coincidence as being a common type of man's wallet sold.
Barrett thirty years later may have confused his memory in when and where Westbrook asked him that day about the names of Oswald and Hidell. Myers makes a good case for that as the explanation. But another possibility is the case against Oswald on Tippit was actually weaker than it has been popularly supposed, and for all we know Barrett could have planted that Oswald wallet story as intent to shore it up by introducing a new smoking-gun incrimination of Oswald that would remove any doubt (if there was any). (He told fellow FBI agent Hosty who believed Barrett and published it in Hosty's book, is how Barrett launched it.)
Barrett is the same FBI agent who was a witness of Oswald's arrest and later told Myers with a straight face that the way Oswald got his bruised black eye was Oswald had swung his face into the hand of an officer, giving himself a black eye by assaulting the officer's hand with his eye, lol. That's an aside, sorry. The relevant point is one cannot take seriously incriminating evidence newly introduced from memory for the first time 30 years later, that nobody at the crime scene at the time ever heard of (referring to Oswald ID). This is how urban legends start, which is what this one is.
If there were earlier or contemporary credible witness reports of Oswald ID in that wallet, that would be a different matter. But this story starts for the first time 30 years later. And the wallet wasn't handed in as evidence at the crime scene on the day of the crime, and it is seen in the WFAA-TV film in the same officer's hand as the Tippit revolver which associates it with the hostile at-gunpoint confrontation with Callaway in the obtaining of that gun (and probably Callaways's wallet too).
The key fact that stands out to me about Barrett's claim--which is where it started--is that he never mentioned it until the mid-1990s. No one did.
What reason would they have to say anything about a minor detail in a massive case that, for all they knew, was closed decades ago. Barrett might not even have been aware there was a wallet issue at all.
The WC published their report, declared Oswald guilty and put all the evidence behind lock and key for 75 years. The general public, and likely also most of the officers involved in the case, had no reason to assume that all sorts of strange things would surface once the evidence became available for scrutiny. For decades people had moved on with their lives without even understanding they may have crucial information. If I remember correctly, it was a comment by Hosty that triggered Barrett's memory.
No one mentioned or breathed a word of having seen an Oswald wallet at the scene for over thirty years!
There were only a few people who saw the wallet at the Tippit scene and as far as they knew a wallet containing the Hidell and Oswald ID's was part of the evidence. Why would they question if it was the wallet taken from Oswald in the car by Bentley? It could very well be that they didn't even know another wallet was taken from Oswald in the police car.
That does not pass the smell test of it being Oswald's wallet, which would have been extremely memorable and the wallet logged into evidence with the Crime Scene personnel (Doughty and Barnes) right there at the scene.
Yes, it would indeed be memorable to find a wallet on Oswald containing the Hidell ID. So, why did none of the officers that were in the car with Oswald mention such a find in any report? For months none of the officers said anything. Bentley wasn't called to testify and Gerald Hill said in his testimony, six months later, that he vaguely remembered the Hidell name being mentioned. Now isn't that weird?
Everything else you have written is pure speculation, so I won't bother to reply to it.
What I will ask you is; can you produce a solid chain of custody for the wallet taken from Oswald by Bentley?
Also, who was the unidentified officer that gave Guy Rose a wallet that contained the Hidell ID, and where did he/she get that wallet?
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.
If there is no chain of custody for the wallet, how can it be determined conclusively that the wallet given to Rose is the same one that Bentley took from Oswald in the car?
-
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.
I never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this identification, I believe, was on the library card.
And he also made the statement that there was some more identification in this other name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came in the paper that he bought the gun under.
Mr. BELIN. After you got down there, what did you do with him?
Mr. WALKER. We took him up the homicide and robbery bureau, and we went back there, and one of the detectives said put him In this room. I put him in the room, and he said, "Let the uniform officers stay with him." And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A. J. Hidell on it.
Mr. BELIN. After you got down there, what did you do with him?
Mr. WALKER. We took him up the homicide and robbery bureau, and we went back there, and one of the detectives said put him In this room. I put him in the room, and he said, "Let the uniform officers stay with him." And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A. J. Hidell on it.
Mr. BALL. Alek Hidell?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Yes; and he asked him if he knew Alek Hidell; said he didn't know if he ever heard of the name. He never heard of that and asked him several questions along that line and then after he had denied all knowledge of Alek Hidell, Mr. Kelley asked him, said "Well, isn't it a fact when you were arrested you had an identification card with his name on it in your possession."
He kind of grunted, said "Yes, that's right" and he said "How do you explain that?" And, as best my knowledge. he said "I don't explain it."
Mr. BALL. Another thing, that day, at sometime during the 22d when you questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his pocket with the name Alek Hidell?
Mr. FRITZ. I did; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you ask him about that?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe he had three of those cards if I remember correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was the Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or something.
Mr. STERN - What were they, and what were the responses, if you recall?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - One specific question was with regard to the selective service card in the possession of Oswald bearing a photograph of Oswald and the name Alek James Hidell. Oswald admitted he carried this selective service card, but declined to state that he wrote the signature of Alek J. Hidell appearing on same. Further declined to state the purpose of carrying same, and---or any use he made of same.
Mr. HOLMES....
Then Captain Fritz interrupted and said, "Well, what about this card we got out of your billfold? This draft registration card, he called it, where it showed A. J. Hidell."
"Well, that is the only time that I recall he kind of flared up and he said, "Now, I have told you all I am going to tell you about that card in my billfold." He said, "You have the card yourself, and you know as much about it as I do." And he showed a little anger. Really the only time that he flared up.
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".
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/28qRgVcy/Bentley-Police-report.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/y6D7CQWF/Oswald-wallet-billfold.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4zHqyBY/hidell-id.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZbByrpL/Hidell-Maine-corps-card.jpg)
The negative found amongst Oswald's possessions which was used to produce the Hidell selective service ID and the United States Marine Corps card.
(https://i.postimg.cc/y6Z2Twkt/cadigan-20-negative-hidell-selective-service.jpg)
JohnM
-
Bingo! We have a winner.
Garbage. Based on nothing at all.
No one knows what he said to Mack. No one knows the reply.
-
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.
I never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this identification, I believe, was on the library card.
And he also made the statement that there was some more identification in this other name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came in the paper that he bought the gun under.
Mr. BELIN. After you got down there, what did you do with him?
Mr. WALKER. We took him up the homicide and robbery bureau, and we went back there, and one of the detectives said put him In this room. I put him in the room, and he said, "Let the uniform officers stay with him." And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A. J. Hidell on it.
Mr. BELIN. After you got down there, what did you do with him?
Mr. WALKER. We took him up the homicide and robbery bureau, and we went back there, and one of the detectives said put him In this room. I put him in the room, and he said, "Let the uniform officers stay with him." And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A. J. Hidell on it.
Mr. BALL. Alek Hidell?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Yes; and he asked him if he knew Alek Hidell; said he didn't know if he ever heard of the name. He never heard of that and asked him several questions along that line and then after he had denied all knowledge of Alek Hidell, Mr. Kelley asked him, said "Well, isn't it a fact when you were arrested you had an identification card with his name on it in your possession."
He kind of grunted, said "Yes, that's right" and he said "How do you explain that?" And, as best my knowledge. he said "I don't explain it."
Mr. BALL. Another thing, that day, at sometime during the 22d when you questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his pocket with the name Alek Hidell?
Mr. FRITZ. I did; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you ask him about that?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe he had three of those cards if I remember correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was the Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or something.
Mr. STERN - What were they, and what were the responses, if you recall?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - One specific question was with regard to the selective service card in the possession of Oswald bearing a photograph of Oswald and the name Alek James Hidell. Oswald admitted he carried this selective service card, but declined to state that he wrote the signature of Alek J. Hidell appearing on same. Further declined to state the purpose of carrying same, and---or any use he made of same.
Mr. HOLMES....
Then Captain Fritz interrupted and said, "Well, what about this card we got out of your billfold? This draft registration card, he called it, where it showed A. J. Hidell."
"Well, that is the only time that I recall he kind of flared up and he said, "Now, I have told you all I am going to tell you about that card in my billfold." He said, "You have the card yourself, and you know as much about it as I do." And he showed a little anger. Really the only time that he flared up.
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".
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.
JohnM
BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! - Same old regurgitation. Not one thing that addresses Barrett.
“They said they took the wallet out of his pocket in the car? That’s so much hogwash. That wallet was in (Captain) Westbrook’s hand.”
-
BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! - Same old regurgitation. Not one thing that addresses Barrett.
“They said they took the wallet out of his pocket in the car? That’s so much hogwash. That wallet was in (Captain) Westbrook’s hand.”
Gee Whiz, Capasse, a FIFTY year old memory is oh so reliable, Not!
But a plethora of fresh memories from a ton of eyewitnesses is in your opinion "BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!', this is why you keep on failing. Thumb1:
At the time, recovering the Murder Suspect's Identification at the Tippit crime scene would be the most powerful evidence of all, but Westbrook says Jack Crap about the suspects Wallet. That's a spicy meatball, you got there!
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2HPZzwT/Westbrook-police-report-p1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/x8vMtKk7/Westbrook-police-report-p2.jpg)
BTW, you do realize that discovering Oswald's wallet at the Tippit crime scene makes Oswald as guilty as Hell, are you sure you want to go down that path? :D
JohnM
-
At the time, recovering the Murder Suspect's Identification at the Tippit crime scene would be the most powerful evidence of all, but Westbrook says Jack Crap about the suspects Wallet.
JohnM
::) So what? - They didn't ask him.
-
Interesting that you ignored the fact that Barrett said it was a wallet.
why the folks who are involved in framing Oswald suppress a highly incriminating piece of evidence left at the murder scene?
You keep repeating this BS when you've already been told that nobody claims that a wallet found at a murder scene was suppressed.
If a wallet was suppressed it was the one taken from Oswald in the car by Bentley.
Think about how idiotic it is to suggest that the investigators found or planted Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene but then decided for some inexplicable reason to claim it was found on his person. Wow. Mind blowing. Can you understand that a wallet left at the murder scene would be highly incriminating in linking the owner of the wallet to that crime? And the kicker is that these are the very same investigators you otherwise imply are involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald. Here, however, you suggest they are doing exactly the opposite by covering up the discovery of his wallet at the murder scene.
-
That's a spicy meatball, you got there!
Lest we forget.
57 years after this ad ran, I still say "meesy micey ballsy."
-
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.
I never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this identification, I believe, was on the library card.
And he also made the statement that there was some more identification in this other name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came in the paper that he bought the gun under.
Amazing! Hill and Bentley were sitting on either side of Oswald on the back seat of the car. Hill asks Bentley to get Oswald's wallet for the purpose of identification. Bentley called out the name Lee Oswald and then things get fuzzy for Hill. He claims Bentley made a statement about another name, but he can't remember and between 11/22/63 and his WC testimony on April 8, 1964, he does not mention this in any report. And neither did Bentley!
It's hardly credible that two officers sitting next to Oswald simply do not mention having found two different ID's on the suspect of just about their biggest case of their career. But then, Hill isn't a very reliable witness.
In his WC testimony he says that he marked the revolver at around 4:00 PM and that he had the weapon with him until he marked it.
Mr. HILL. This is a .38 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson, with a 2" barrel that would contain six shells. It is an older gun that has been blue steeled, and has a worn wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this gun before?
Mr. HILL. I am trying to see my mark on it to make sure, sir. I don't recall specifically where I marked it, but I did mark it, if this is the one. I don't remember where I did mark it, now.
Here it is, Hill right here, right in this crack.
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
But officer Walker testified that, when Oswald was brought into the homicide and robbery bureau, he had the revolver and a card with the name Hidell on it.
Mr. BELIN. After you got down there, what did you do with him?
Mr. WALKER. We took him up the homicide and robbery bureau, and we went back there, and one of the detectives said put him In this room. I put him in the room, and he said, "Let the uniform officers stay with him." And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A. J. Hidell on it.
It also does not match the fact that the S & W revolver and a black billfold were submitted to the evidence room, by officer Bardin, at 3:25 PM.
And it gets worse;
(https://i.postimg.cc/28qRgVcy/Bentley-Police-report.jpg)
JohnM
In his report, Bentley writes "On the way to the City Hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name"
Hill told us in his testimony that Bentley called out the name Oswald, so that must be the name he obtained from the wallet.
Isn't it just remarkable that Bentley doesn't mention the Hidell name at all?
Btw, Bentley also writes that Hill had the revolver and that he marked it before the weapon and the identification was handed over to Lt Baker.
So, we have Hill claiming he had the revolved until he marked it at around 4:00 PM
Bentley says he also marked the revolver before Hill turned it over to Lt Baker
But Walker claims that he had the revolver and the identification when Oswald was brought into the homicide bureau
and there is a receipt showing that at 3:35 PM officer Bardin submitted the revolver and wallet to the evidence room.
It doesn't add up!
-
Think about how idiotic it is to suggest that the investigators found or planted Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene but then decided for some inexplicable reason to claim it was found on his person. Wow. Mind blowing. Can you understand that a wallet left at the murder scene would be highly incriminating in linking the owner of the wallet to that crime? And the kicker is that these are the very same investigators you otherwise imply are involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald. Here, however, you suggest they are doing exactly the opposite by covering up the discovery of his wallet at the murder scene.
Think about how idiotic it is to suggest that the investigators found or planted Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene but then decided for some inexplicable reason to claim it was found on his person.
You can consider it to be idiotic as much as you want, but just about everybody who lives in the real world knows that police officers do plant and manipulate evidence. If the wallet taken from Oswald by Bentley had no or little evidentiary value but the highly incriminating (possible planted) wallet from the Tippit scene does have such value, it's certainly not impossible that a simple switch was made.
And the kicker is that these are the very same investigators you otherwise imply are involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald
I never said that those DPD officers were part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. But it is not impossible that in Henry Wade's 1963 Texas, the case was wrapped around Oswald, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
History has shown that the DPD had a reputation for frequently doing stuff like that, which is exactly the reason why the innocence project managed to get a substantial number of convictions obtained by Wade overturned.
Here, however, you suggest they are doing exactly the opposite by covering up the discovery of his wallet at the murder scene.
No. You are suggesting that. I never did
-
Actually it's not about the wallet;
I think I got this from Weisberg
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."
-
It is one of those stupid, garbage, nonsense, BS: instances in this case
There are a few more;
Like the Parkland doctors that never looked at the back of the head.
Or the bullet that falls out of the Governors leg after leaving more lead than it should weigh.
Or the bullet that struck the cop, but was stopped by a button on his coat or shirt.
Or the "unmutilated" condition of CE-399 after 7 wounds incl. fracturing a rib and shattering a wrist.
Ever have a wallet fall out of your pocket? This was supposed to be nine months after using the "Hidell card"
Or a witnesses that walks up to a cop and says, "...the killer dropped this..."
:D Too funny.
-
Think about how idiotic it is to suggest that the investigators found or planted Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene but then decided for some inexplicable reason to claim it was found on his person.
You can consider it to be idiotic as much as you want, but just about everybody who lives in the real world knows that police officers do plant and manipulate evidence. If the wallet taken from Oswald by Bentley had no or little evidentiary value but the highly incriminating (possible planted) wallet from the Tippit scene does have such value, it's certainly not impossible that a simple switch was made.
And the kicker is that these are the very same investigators you otherwise imply are involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald
I never said that those DPD officers were part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald. But it is not impossible that in Henry Wade's 1963 Texas, the case was wrapped around Oswald, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
History has shown that the DPD had a reputation for frequently doing stuff like that, which is exactly the reason why the innocence project managed to get a substantial number of convictions obtained by Wade overturned.
Here, however, you suggest they are doing exactly the opposite by covering up the discovery of his wallet at the murder scene.
No. You are suggesting that. I never did
Instead of playing the endless contrarian give us a narrative that explains Oswald's wallet being left at the Tippit murder scene and the investigators covering that up. Particularly if you think they are involved in framing Oswald. Explain it. Don't deflect to some contrarian nonsense.
-
Instead of playing the endless contrarian give us a narrative that explains Oswald's wallet being left at the Tippit murder scene and the investigators covering that up. Particularly if you think they are involved in framing Oswald. Explain it. Don't deflect to some contrarian nonsense.
Instead of playing the endless contrarian give us a narrative that explains Oswald's wallet being left at the Tippit murder scene and the investigators covering that up.
Why would I give you a narrative for something I have never said.
You have already been told that nobody claims that investigators covered up a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene, yet you keep on repeating it. it is not my problem if you can't understand what is written.
-
Instead of playing the endless contrarian give us a narrative that explains Oswald's wallet being left at the Tippit murder scene and the investigators covering that up.
Why would I give you a narrative for something I have never said.
You have already been told that nobody claims that investigators covered up a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene, yet you keep on repeating it. it is not my problem if you can't understand what is written.
Got it. You can't explain why the investigators would act in the way you suggest. It doesn't concern you that there is no narrative that explains this. in fact, it is entirely contrary to your nonsense that there is doubt of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder and someone involved in the investigation was framing him. Instead in this instance you insist that his wallet was found at the crime scene and the same investigators covered up this highly incriminatory piece of evidence linking him to the crime. Aren't you sometimes ashamed to peddle that nonsense. I thought folks in "Europe" were busy watching the US dominate the World Cup. U-S-A, U-S-A.
-
Got it. You can't explain why the investigators would act in the way you suggest. It doesn't concern you that there is no narrative that explains this. in fact, it is entirely contrary to your nonsense that there is doubt of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder and someone involved in the investigation was framing him. Instead in this instance you insist that his wallet was found at the crime scene and the same investigators covered up this highly incriminatory piece of evidence linking him to the crime. I thought folks in "Europe" were busy watching the US dominate the World Cup. U-S-A, U-S-A.
Aren't you sometimes ashamed to peddle that nonsense.
It's you who is peddling nonsense. Stop making up things that you claim I said, but never did.
I thought folks in "Europe" were busy watching the US dominate the World Cup. U-S-A, U-S-A.
Perhaps you should stop thinking. We would all be better off.
Btw, I am not in the least interested in the World Cup.
-
Aren't you sometimes ashamed to peddle that nonsense.
It's you who is peddling nonsense. Stop making up things that you claim I said, but never did.
I thought folks in "Europe" were busy watching the US dominate the World Cup. U-S-A, U-S-A.
Perhaps you should stop thinking. We would all be better off.
Btw, I am not in the least interested in the World Cup.
Round and round we go down the contrarian rabbit hole. You have suggested that your fantasy conspirators are working against their own interest in framing Oswald. You have no explanation for why they might do this. You don't even try likely realizing the stupidity of what you are claiming. Taking ownership of the implications of your theories are not a strong point. They are just so in contrarian land. No one involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald would cover up the discovery of his wallet at the Tippit murder scene. Full stop.
-
Round and round we go down the contrarian rabbit hole. You have suggested that your fantasy conspirators are working against their own interest in framing Oswald. You have no explanation for why they might do this. You don't even try likely realizing the stupidity of what you are claiming. Taking ownership of the implications of your theories are not a strong point. They are just so in contrarian land. No one involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald would cover up the discovery of his wallet at the Tippit murder scene. Full stop.
You have suggested that your fantasy conspirators are working against their own interest in framing Oswald.
I'm not talking to a dishonest fool who makes up stuff that I never suggested.
No one involved in a conspiracy to frame Oswald would cover up the discovery of his wallet at the Tippit murder scene.
Which is why they didn't cover it up. I'm sorry if that's over your head.
-
J. D. Tippit's death certificate says the injury occurred at 1:18 PM and death occurred at 1:15 PM! Carry on.
Oops, I guess this belongs on the other thread.
(https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2026/12/223777851_7770af24-acb4-4d95-a613-7a4ce2bbb3a6.jpeg)
-
J. D. Tippit's death certificate says the injury occurred at 1:18 PM and death occurred at 1:15 PM! Carry on.
(https://images.findagrave.com/photos/2026/12/223777851_7770af24-acb4-4d95-a613-7a4ce2bbb3a6.jpeg)
Yes, I noticed that as well. The problem is that the death certificate was filed on November 29, 1963 by Dudley Funeral Home, who, as far as I can tell, did not have first hand knowledge about what happened at the hospital a week earlier.
You can't make this stuff up!
-
Yes, it would indeed be memorable to find a wallet on Oswald containing the Hidell ID. So, why did none of the officers that were in the car with Oswald mention such a find in any report? For months none of the officers said anything. Bentley wasn't called to testify and Gerald Hill said in his testimony, six months later, that he vaguely remembered the Hidell name being mentioned. Now isn't that weird?
Everything else you have written is pure speculation, so I won't bother to reply to it.
What I will ask you is; can you produce a solid chain of custody for the wallet taken from Oswald by Bentley?
Also, who was the unidentified officer that gave Guy Rose a wallet that contained the Hidell ID, and where did he/she get that wallet?
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.
If there is no chain of custody for the wallet, how can it be determined conclusively that the wallet given to Rose is the same one that Bentley took from Oswald in the car?
Those may be valid questions but are of no relevance to the issue under discussion, the claim of Oswald ID in the WFAA-TV wallet filmed at the crime scene. It is not logical to link objections to a vanishingly weak case on Claim A to a “what about” over somewhere else where there is no linkage at all. The point about the Oswald ID claim at the crime scene is if there had been such a thing it would have been told, Leavelle in charge of the investigation would have known, that wallet would have been marked by officers, or bagged and labeled, and turned in as evidence to the crime lab at the crime scene right then instead of returned to whoever its civilian owner was at the scene. It would not wait 30 years for a claim of such to first come out from anyone. There is not a single witness in their living lifetime who is on tape or in print or statement signed in their own name saying they saw Oswald ID at the crime scene. Think about that. Even Croy’s posthumous autograph inscription if one thinks about it is at best a claim of belief (anyone can believe anything, that’s not evidence), not a claim of having firsthand witness evidence to offer.
There is no known record that Scoggins was ever asked about that wallet, and it is not clear (to me anyway) that Callaway ever was asked directly or directly denied. The reason for a little uncertainty here is Myers never reports a Callaway denial in his book, but at one point seemed to do so in a passing comment on his blog, but when I tried to ask him for clarification on that—because it is an important point if true—he did not answer my question. And I don’t think it even was written by Myers top level in a blog post but in one of the appended comments after, and he never repeated it. So I at least am uncertain if that is actually Callaway did deny, or whether that was maybe Myers’ interpretation of something less clear from Callaway. And of course there is no exact quote, transcript or tape of Myers’ Callaway interview to consult to fact-check the point. Bottom line: it seems likely—in light of the factual linkage of that wallet to the Tippit revolver filmed in the same officer’s hand—that that wallet was from either Callaway or Scoggins, and WFAA-TV filmed it just moments before it was returned to the citizen, probably Callaway or Scoggins, as its rightful owner, of no evidential interest or relevance to the Tippit murder case.
That it was not turned in as evidence at the time indicates it was a citizen’s, not considered evidence in the murder case. Since it is abnormal for a civilian to give an officer a wallet itself instead of ID pulled out from a wallet, this was not a normal routine citizen’s ID check. But it is factually part of the return of the Tippit revolver which had factually been taken from the crime scene by Callaway, with Callaway seen having done so causing witnesses to at first suspect Callaway, and Callaway and Scoggins were stopped and the Tippit revolver retrieved from Callaway at gunpoint, or in a hostile and embarrassing encounter. Since the wallet is linked to that Tippit revolver’s recovery from Callaway (evidence: the WFAA footage), that wallet makes sense as obtained from Callaway at the same time as the Tippit revolver, both turned in to the police, the police realize Callaway was not the gunman, and give him back his wallet. It’s a reconstruction but it is a plausible explanation of the wallet which accounts for the facts, and whose else would that wallet be than one of those two—a wallet linked to the Tippit revolver recovery episode and which police do not consider physical evidence in the crime case.
-
Those may be valid questions but are of no relevance to the issue under discussion, the claim of Oswald ID in the WFAA-TV wallet filmed at the crime scene. It is not logical to link objections to a vanishingly weak case on Claim A to a “what about” over somewhere else where there is no linkage at all. The point about the Oswald ID claim at the crime scene is if there had been such a thing it would have been told, Leavelle in charge of the investigation would have known, that wallet would have been marked by officers, or bagged and labeled, and turned in as evidence to the crime lab at the crime scene right then instead of returned to whoever its civilian owner was at the scene. It would not wait 30 years for a claim of such to first come out from anyone. There is not a single witness in their living lifetime who is on tape or in print or statement signed in their own name saying they saw Oswald ID at the crime scene. Think about that. Even Croy’s posthumous autograph inscription if one thinks about it is at best a claim of belief (anyone can believe anything, that’s not evidence), not a claim of having firsthand witness evidence to offer.
There is no known record that Scoggins was ever asked about that wallet, and it is not clear (to me anyway) that Callaway ever was asked directly or directly denied. The reason for a little uncertainty here is Myers never reports a Callaway denial in his book, but at one point seemed to do so in a passing comment on his blog, but when I tried to ask him for clarification on that—because it is an important point if true—he did not answer my question. And I don’t think it even was written by Myers top level in a blog post but in one of the appended comments after, and he never repeated it. So I at least am uncertain if that is actually Callaway did deny, or whether that was maybe Myers’ interpretation of something less clear from Callaway. And of course there is no exact quote, transcript or tape of Myers’ Callaway interview to consult to fact-check the point. Bottom line: it seems likely—in light of the factual linkage of that wallet to the Tippit revolver filmed in the same officer’s hand—that that wallet was from either Callaway or Scoggins, and WFAA-TV filmed it just moments before it was returned to the citizen, probably Callaway or Scoggins, as its rightful owner, of no evidential interest or relevance to the Tippit murder case.
That it was not turned in as evidence at the time indicates it was a citizen’s, not considered evidence in the murder case. Since it is abnormal for a civilian to give an officer a wallet itself instead of ID pulled out from a wallet, this was not a normal routine citizen’s ID check. But it is factually part of the return of the Tippit revolver which had factually been taken from the crime scene by Callaway, with Callaway seen having done so causing witnesses to at first suspect Callaway, and Callaway and Scoggins were stopped and the Tippit revolver retrieved from Callaway at gunpoint, or in a hostile and embarrassing encounter. Since the wallet is linked to that Tippit revolver’s recovery from Callaway (evidence: the WFAA footage), that wallet makes sense as obtained from Callaway at the same time as the Tippit revolver, both turned in to the police, the police realize Callaway was not the gunman, and give him back his wallet. It’s a reconstruction but it is a plausible explanation of the wallet which accounts for the facts, and whose else would that wallet be than one of those two—a wallet linked to the Tippit revolver recovery episode and which police do not consider physical evidence in the crime case.
Those may be valid questions but are of no relevance to the issue under discussion, the claim of Oswald ID in the WFAA-TV wallet filmed at the crime scene.
Of course the questions are relevant. You may not like them, but that doesn't make them less relevant.
The point about the Oswald ID claim at the crime scene is if there had been such a thing it would have been told,
That's just your assumption. It seems to me you are just not getting it.
that wallet would have been marked by officers, or bagged and labeled, and turned in as evidence to the crime lab at the crime scene right then
Really? The wallet that Bentley took from Oswald in the car wasn't marked!
And as far as turning it in to the evidence room; a wallet was indeed presented to the evidence room at 3:35 PM. We just don't know which wallet that was.
instead of returned to whoever its civilian owner was at the scene
Another assumption for which there is not a shred of evidence. Some LNs claim that what is seen in the footage is most likely Tippit's citation book and others claim it was a wallet that belonged to a civilian. The fact remains that FBI agent Barrett said that it was a wallet and that Westbrook was looking at it when he asked him if he knew Hidell or Oswald. Again, you may not like it. You may even want to dismiss it, but the fact of the matter is that what Barrett said is evidence. Deal with it!
There is not a single witness in their living lifetime who is on tape or in print or statement signed in their own name saying they saw Oswald ID at the crime scene.
There also isn't a single officer, who was in the car with Oswald, who ever wrote in a report that the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald contained a Hidell ID. Not even Bentley himself mentioned it in the report he wrote on the day of the arrest. Do you really want people to believe that a crucial piece of evidence, potentially linking Oswald to the rifle and revolver, would be ignored and not mentioned by any officer? Really?
That it was not turned in as evidence at the time indicates it was a citizen’s, not considered evidence in the murder case.
You are way too desperate in trying to come up with "reasons" why it couldn't have been a wallet linked to Oswald that was found at the crime scene. As I said before, a wallet with the Hidell and Oswald ID's in it was submitted to the evidence room. We just don't know which wallet that was, but given the fact that none of the officers who were in the car with Oswald made any verbal or written statement about a Hidell ID being in that wallet, it most likely was indeed the crime scene wallet that was turned in to the evidence room, after it had been given to Guy Rose for his conversation with Oswald.
You can make all the assumptions you want, but please don't make the mistake of confusing your assumption with actual evidence!
-
Those may be valid questions but are of no relevance to the issue under discussion, the claim of Oswald ID in the WFAA-TV wallet filmed at the crime scene. It is not logical to link objections to a vanishingly weak case on Claim A to a “what about” over somewhere else where there is no linkage at all. The point about the Oswald ID claim at the crime scene is if there had been such a thing it would have been told, Leavelle in charge of the investigation would have known, that wallet would have been marked by officers, or bagged and labeled, and turned in as evidence to the crime lab at the crime scene right then instead of returned to whoever its civilian owner was at the scene. It would not wait 30 years for a claim of such to first come out from anyone. There is not a single witness in their living lifetime who is on tape or in print or statement signed in their own name saying they saw Oswald ID at the crime scene. Think about that. Even Croy’s posthumous autograph inscription if one thinks about it is at best a claim of belief (anyone can believe anything, that’s not evidence), not a claim of having firsthand witness evidence to offer.
There is no known record that Scoggins was ever asked about that wallet, and it is not clear (to me anyway) that Callaway ever was asked directly or directly denied. The reason for a little uncertainty here is Myers never reports a Callaway denial in his book, but at one point seemed to do so in a passing comment on his blog, but when I tried to ask him for clarification on that—because it is an important point if true—he did not answer my question. And I don’t think it even was written by Myers top level in a blog post but in one of the appended comments after, and he never repeated it. So I at least am uncertain if that is actually Callaway did deny, or whether that was maybe Myers’ interpretation of something less clear from Callaway. And of course there is no exact quote, transcript or tape of Myers’ Callaway interview to consult to fact-check the point. Bottom line: it seems likely—in light of the factual linkage of that wallet to the Tippit revolver filmed in the same officer’s hand—that that wallet was from either Callaway or Scoggins, and WFAA-TV filmed it just moments before it was returned to the citizen, probably Callaway or Scoggins, as its rightful owner, of no evidential interest or relevance to the Tippit murder case.
That it was not turned in as evidence at the time indicates it was a citizen’s, not considered evidence in the murder case. Since it is abnormal for a civilian to give an officer a wallet itself instead of ID pulled out from a wallet, this was not a normal routine citizen’s ID check. But it is factually part of the return of the Tippit revolver which had factually been taken from the crime scene by Callaway, with Callaway seen having done so causing witnesses to at first suspect Callaway, and Callaway and Scoggins were stopped and the Tippit revolver retrieved from Callaway at gunpoint, or in a hostile and embarrassing encounter. Since the wallet is linked to that Tippit revolver’s recovery from Callaway (evidence: the WFAA footage), that wallet makes sense as obtained from Callaway at the same time as the Tippit revolver, both turned in to the police, the police realize Callaway was not the gunman, and give him back his wallet. It’s a reconstruction but it is a plausible explanation of the wallet which accounts for the facts, and whose else would that wallet be than one of those two—a wallet linked to the Tippit revolver recovery episode and which police do not consider physical evidence in the crime case.
A lot of nothing to do with Scoggins or Callaway as related to the wallet. They left the scene.
Think about that. Even Croy’s posthumous autograph inscription if one thinks about it is at best a claim of belief (anyone can believe anything, that’s not evidence), not a claim of having firsthand witness evidence to offer.
This part is just made up BS:
-
Martin Weidmann— I did not realize you were proposing a crime scene wallet might be the one turned in later as the Oswald wallet in evidence, and not the one said to have been taken from Oswald in the car. That removes some of my objection of irrelevance to the crime scene issue. But may I ask, are you meaning this as evidence Oswald was present at the crime scene with Hidell ID? Do you think Oswald shot Tippit? Do you think he accidentally dropped his wallet at the scene, or handed his wallet to Tippit? I’m having trouble seeing where you go with this.
30 years later for a first mention of something that would be expected memorable from the beginning is the key fact making this urban legend genre. Not all witness claims are equal. Analogy that comes to mind is the claim of Secret Service agent Mike Howard that a torn out page in Oswald’s address book had a death list of four people Oswald intended to kill, that Howard claimed he saw the first week. The problem is there is no verification and Howard first mentioned it nearly 30 years after the fact. Sure he said it. Still does. But nobody believes it (I sure don’t) because of the 30-yr delay for a first witness claim that has no other verification. This Oswald wallet at the crime scene very parallel to the Mike Howard claim. They’re both equally unbelievable and for exactly parallel reasons.
-
Martin Weidmann— I did not realize you were proposing a crime scene wallet might be the one turned in later as the Oswald wallet in evidence, and not the one said to have been taken from Oswald in the car. That removes some of my objection of irrelevance to the crime scene issue. But may I ask, are you meaning this as evidence Oswald was present at the crime scene with Hidell ID? Do you think Oswald shot Tippit? Do you think he accidentally dropped his wallet at the scene, or handed his wallet to Tippit? I’m having trouble seeing where you go with this.
30 years later for a first mention of something that would be expected memorable from the beginning is the key fact making this urban legend genre. Not all witness claims are equal. Analogy that comes to mind is the claim of Secret Service agent Mike Howard that a torn out page in Oswald’s address book had a death list of four people Oswald intended to kill, that Howard claimed he saw the first week. The problem is there is no verification and Howard first mentioned it nearly 30 years after the fact. Sure he said it. Still does. But nobody believes it (I sure don’t) because of the 30-yr delay for a first witness claim that has no other verification. This Oswald wallet at the crime scene very parallel to the Mike Howard claim. They’re both equally unbelievable and for exactly parallel reasons.
Like Inspector Clouseau "Martin" suspects everyone and he suspects no one. It makes absolutely no sense for the authorities to find an Oswald wallet at the Tippit murder scene but then claim it was found on him when arrested. Obviously, a wallet left at the murder scene is highly incriminating evidence of the involvement of its owner. If the investigators are in a position to suppress the wallet Oswald carried when arrested, then they had a choice as to which wallet to suppress. They would have gone with the highly incriminating wallet left or planted at the murder scene. To the extent that they needed to take anything from Oswald's arrest wallet, they could easily have placed it in the Tippit wallet. They controlled the evidence. This is all just rabbit hole nonsense that goes nowhere.
-
Martin Weidmann— I did not realize you were proposing a crime scene wallet might be the one turned in later as the Oswald wallet in evidence, and not the one said to have been taken from Oswald in the car. That removes some of my objection of irrelevance to the crime scene issue. But may I ask, are you meaning this as evidence Oswald was present at the crime scene with Hidell ID? Do you think Oswald shot Tippit? Do you think he accidentally dropped his wallet at the scene, or handed his wallet to Tippit? I’m having trouble seeing where you go with this.
30 years later for a first mention of something that would be expected memorable from the beginning is the key fact making this urban legend genre. Not all witness claims are equal. Analogy that comes to mind is the claim of Secret Service agent Mike Howard that a torn out page in Oswald’s address book had a death list of four people Oswald intended to kill, that Howard claimed he saw the first week. The problem is there is no verification and Howard first mentioned it nearly 30 years after the fact. Sure he said it. Still does. But nobody believes it (I sure don’t) because of the 30-yr delay for a first witness claim that has no other verification. This Oswald wallet at the crime scene very parallel to the Mike Howard claim. They’re both equally unbelievable and for exactly parallel reasons.
I did not realize you were proposing a crime scene wallet might be the one turned in later as the Oswald wallet in evidence, and not the one said to have been taken from Oswald in the car.
In my previous posts I made it clear enough that this was a possibility.
Let's examine what we actually know;
Hill and Bentley were sitting on either side of Oswald on the back seat of the car, when Hill asked Bentley to look for identification. Bentley found a wallet and, according to Hill, mentioned Lee Oswald. Not a word about Hidell by any of the officers in the car until Hill, during his WC testimony on April 8, 1964, vaguely remembers another name, which could have been Hidell, was also mentioned in the car. There is not a single report (including the one filed by Bentley on 11/22/63) that actually mentions an Hidell ID being found in that wallet.
On the other hand we have FBI agent Barrett who not only clearly states that Westbrook was holding a wallet and asked him about Hidell and Oswald at the Tippit crime scene but also called the suggestion that the wallet with the Hidell ID in it was taken from Oswald in the car, "hogwash".
This is were it gets complicated. When the car arrived at City Hall, Bentley went to the homicide bureau to write a report (the one in which he does not mention Hidell!) before being taken to the hospital. What happened to the wallet that Bentley has is anybody's guess. Bentley writes in his report that he gave the identification to Lt. Baker, after he had initialed the revolver together with Hill. The problem is that, according to Hill, that happened at around 4:00 PM. And then we have officer Walker who had been at the Tippit crime scene, who claims in his WC testimony that when Oswald was brought into the homicide bureau (at around 1:15 PM , IIRC) he (Walker) had the revolver and the Hidell identification.
So, now we turn to Guy Rose, who had been called in and arrived just as Oswald was being brought in. He was the first officer to talk to Oswald and just before that happened an unidentified patrol officer gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.
So, here is the discrepancy; if Bentley gave the wallet to Lt Baker at around 4:00 PM, how could Rose have had it at just past 1:00 PM when he talked to Oswald and how could the wallet containing the Hidell ID be submitted to the evidence room at 3:35 PM.
Do you understand the problem now?
But may I ask, are you meaning this as evidence Oswald was present at the crime scene with Hidell ID?
No. It's only potential evidence that a wallet containing the Oswald and Hidell ID was at the Tippit crime scene. How it got there is anybody's guess.
Do you think Oswald shot Tippit?
What I think is not really important, but since you asked; I think it's a mistake to jump to conclusions.
It all comes down to opportunity and motive. Could Oswald have arrived at 10th street in time to kill Tippit? What was he even doing there? And if he shot Tippit to evade arrest why not leave after Tippit was down? Why go back and shoot him in the head to ensure he was dead? It doesn't make sense to me. The coup the grace shot is a complete mystery to me.
Do you think he accidentally dropped his wallet at the scene, or handed his wallet to Tippit?
I have no idea. Once again, you assume that it was Oswald himself who carried that wallet but we don't know that.
30 years later for a first mention of something that would be expected memorable from the beginning is the key fact making this urban legend genre.
I've already said this once before. What if Barrett, for 30 years, had no knowledge there was even a problem with the wallet until he talked to Hosty? Vicki Adams wasn't heard from for decades because she wasn't aware what the WC had said about her reliablity or lack thereof. As the case was closed in 1964, Barrett, like most people, would have gotten on with his life and most likely never had a reason to second guess the WC report.
This Oswald wallet at the crime scene very parallel to the Mike Howard claim. They’re both equally unbelievable and for exactly parallel reasons.
No. The wallet story has footage showing it being held at the Tippit scene. There's also circumstantial evidence to support the possibility of wallets being switched.
The only reason for you to call them both unbelievable is that you don't want to believe them. It is as simple as that.
-
Martin Weidmann, it is not correct that the reason I reject the crime scene Oswald wallet first known in Hosty’s book in the late 1990’s is because that is what I want to believe. No, it is because witness claims always must be assessed case by case and that is how it looks to me evidentially as a judgment, on evidence grounds alone. If anything, I have a bias to want to read the evidence in a way that Oswald is innocent, which I have to attempt consciously not to interfere with objectivity (if that is possible). But what about yourself. You will agree, I believe, that upon first encounter of the Barrett story from 1990’s with its sensational claim, that cannot automatically, right off the bat, be known true or false. No witness saying something out of the blue 30 years later makes it true just because he said it. Agreed?
Then the next question is what did tip you to belief that 30-years later witness claim was true? Was a factor in there that you want it to be true (your own question to you)?
A first question in assessing a witness making a new sensational claim 30 years later for the first time (publicly) is always asked by investigative journalists. Did this witness tell others privately of this earlier or from the original time? Answer in Barrett’s case: no. Second question investigative journalists ask: is there positive corroboration from other evidence or witnesses to the late sensational claim? Answer: none known at that time. There was a wallet, that is not in dispute, but there is no positive evidence it was considered crime scene evidence by police, and there is a plausible explanation for it (as I hsve outlined related to the Tippit revolver incident recovery). Therefore the Barrett story is not needed to explain what otherwise has no conceivable reasonable other explanation.
Is it the personal character and credibility of the witness, Barrett? An argument can be made that he tried to incriminate Oswald at earlier times through a false claim, of which the later 30-year claim is similar in genre (intended to incriminate Oswald on Tippit). But never mind that—30 years is time for honest witnesses to confuse details in memory. Anyone who has a grandfather who likes to tell stories of the past knows that. It isn’t dishonesty, it’s fallibility in human recall and narrative construction with the passage of time.
What to you tipped the 1990s Barrett claim from a status of initial uncertainty and justified skepticism (because: sensational; new 30 years later) to conviction or confidence that his claim was true, in terms of positive evidence (not “it could be true” argument, but what you saw as positive evidence that it was true)? What says to you: other 30 years-later stories solely dependent on witness claims with no physical evidence [referring in this case to Oswald ID at the crime scene, not existence of a wallet] are urban legends. What tilted you to conclude this case was different; this witness was not only honest but also accurately honest, in this claim first made public or known made privately either, 30 years after the fact? A question of self-examination of epistemology—why do we come to think we know what we think we know?
-
I did not realize you were proposing a crime scene wallet might be the one turned in later as the Oswald wallet in evidence, and not the one said to have been taken from Oswald in the car.
In my previous posts I made it clear enough that this was a possibility.
Let's examine what we actually know;
Hill and Bentley were sitting on either side of Oswald on the back seat of the car, when Hill asked Bentley to look for identification. Bentley found a wallet and, according to Hill, mentioned Lee Oswald. Not a word about Hidell by any of the officers in the car until Hill, during his WC testimony on April 8, 1964, vaguely remembers another name, which could have been Hidell, was also mentioned in the car. There is not a single report (including the one filed by Bentley on 11/22/63) that actually mentions an Hidell ID being found in that wallet.
On the other hand we have FBI agent Barrett who not only clearly states that Westbrook was holding a wallet and asked him about Hidell and Oswald at the Tippit crime scene but also called the suggestion that the wallet with the Hidell ID in it was taken from Oswald in the car, "hogwash".
This is were it gets complicated. When the car arrived at City Hall, Bentley went to the homicide bureau to write a report (the one in which he does not mention Hidell!) before being taken to the hospital. What happened to the wallet that Bentley has is anybody's guess. Bentley writes in his report that he gave the identification to Lt. Baker, after he had initialed the revolver together with Hill. The problem is that, according to Hill, that happened at around 4:00 PM. And then we have officer Walker who had been at the Tippit crime scene, who claims in his WC testimony that when Oswald was brought into the homicide bureau (at around 1:15 PM , IIRC) he (Walker) had the revolver and the Hidell identification.
So, now we turn to Guy Rose, who had been called in and arrived just as Oswald was being brought in. He was the first officer to talk to Oswald and just before that happened an unidentified patrol officer gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.
So, here is the discrepancy; if Bentley gave the wallet to Lt Baker at around 4:00 PM, how could Rose have had it at just past 1:00 PM when he talked to Oswald and how could the wallet containing the Hidell ID be submitted to the evidence room at 3:35 PM.
Do you understand the problem now?
But may I ask, are you meaning this as evidence Oswald was present at the crime scene with Hidell ID?
No. It's only potential evidence that a wallet containing the Oswald and Hidell ID was at the Tippit crime scene. How it got there is anybody's guess.
Do you think Oswald shot Tippit?
What I think is not really important, but since you asked; I think it's a mistake to jump to conclusions.
It all comes down to opportunity and motive. Could Oswald have arrived at 10th street in time to kill Tippit? What was he even doing there? And if he shot Tippit to evade arrest why not leave after Tippit was down? Why go back and shoot him in the head to ensure he was dead? It doesn't make sense to me. The coup the grace shot is a complete mystery to me.
Do you think he accidentally dropped his wallet at the scene, or handed his wallet to Tippit?
I have no idea. Once again, you assume that it was Oswald himself who carried that wallet but we don't know that.
30 years later for a first mention of something that would be expected memorable from the beginning is the key fact making this urban legend genre.
I've already said this once before. What if Barrett, for 30 years, had no knowledge there was even a problem with the wallet until he talked to Hosty? Vicki Adams wasn't heard from for decades because she wasn't aware what the WC had said about her reliablity or lack thereof. As the case was closed in 1964, Barrett, like most people, would have gotten on with his life and most likely never had a reason to second guess the WC report.
This Oswald wallet at the crime scene very parallel to the Mike Howard claim. They’re both equally unbelievable and for exactly parallel reasons.
No. The wallet story has footage showing it being held at the Tippit scene. There's also circumstantial evidence to support the possibility of wallets being switched.
The only reason for you to call them both unbelievable is that you don't want to believe them. It is as simple as that.
I think Greg is just being too cautious, and not because he doesn't want to believe them. Greg's extreme caution makes it all the more important when he concludes that an item of evidence supports the conspiracy view.
I agree that plenty of witnesses did not come forward until many years later because they simply did not realize the importance of their information. Hosty and Barett were both "hostile witnesses."
My bottom line is that I simply cannot believe it's just a cosmic coincidence that a wallet was found next to Tippit's car.
I also find it very hard to believe that someone as intelligent as Oswald would have been abjectly stupid enough to be walking around with a fake Hidell ID in his wallet after supposedly shooting JFK with a rifle ordered by an "A. Hidell." I mean, come on. If this isn't a case of crucial evidence being far too pat, I don't know what would be.
-
It all comes down to opportunity and motive. Could Oswald have arrived at 10th street in time to kill Tippit? What was he even doing there? And if he shot Tippit to evade arrest why not leave after Tippit was down? Why go back and shoot him in the head to ensure he was dead? It doesn't make sense to me. The coup the grace shot is a complete mystery to me.
This is a genuine puzzle to me as well. The LN narrative presumably would be "He wanted to be sure Tippit was dead and couldn't get to his radio." But since there were several witnesses, this scarcely seems compelling. The close-range coup de grace is the sort of thing we hear all the time that supposedly suggests some sort of prior relationship and personal rage.
-
This is a genuine puzzle to me as well. The LN narrative presumably would be "He wanted to be sure Tippit was dead and couldn't get to his radio." But since there were several witnesses, this scarcely seems compelling. The close-range coup de grace is the sort of thing we hear all the time that supposedly suggests some sort of prior relationship and personal rage.
The autopsy found no "powder tattooing" at the margins of the head wounds.
Rose's autopsy report here: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/9/
"Gunshot stippling and tattooing are patterns of tiny skin injuries left by gunpowder particles when a firearm discharges at close range. These marks help forensic examiners estimate the distance between the muzzle and the target, reconstruct the angle of fire, and determine whether the wound occurred before or after death. For attorneys on either side of a criminal case, the presence or absence of these patterns often drives the narrative: a close-range shot tells a very different story than a distant one, and getting the interpretation wrong can mean the difference between a conviction and an acquittal."
Source/link: https://legalclarity.org/gunshot-stippling-and-tattooing-range-of-fire-and-court-use/
From Myers:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID13584079990/Key9o63o7kd6bcn/tippitt one.jpg)
-
It all comes down to opportunity and motive. Could Oswald have arrived at 10th street in time to kill Tippit?
Yes.
What was he even doing there?
He never told us. It's a little late to ask him now.
And if he shot Tippit to evade arrest why not leave after Tippit was down? Why go back and shoot him in the head to ensure he was dead? It doesn't make sense to me. The coup the grace shot is a complete mystery to me.
It doesn't need to make sense to you. It made sense to Oswald. He was calling the shots in this episode.
This is a logical fallacy CTs often fall into. They can't understand why Oswald made the decisions he did and did the things he did. They put themselves in Oswald's shoes and think they wouldn't have done that. That's nice but irrelevant. Oswald did the things he thought was best for him. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to anybody but him.
[/quote]
-
Martin Weidmann, it is not correct that the reason I reject the crime scene Oswald wallet first known in Hosty’s book in the late 1990’s is because that is what I want to believe. No, it is because witness claims always must be assessed case by case and that is how it looks to me evidentially as a judgment, on evidence grounds alone. If anything, I have a bias to want to read the evidence in a way that Oswald is innocent, which I have to attempt consciously not to interfere with objectivity (if that is possible). But what about yourself. You will agree, I believe, that upon first encounter of the Barrett story from 1990’s with its sensational claim, that cannot automatically, right off the bat, be known true or false. No witness saying something out of the blue 30 years later makes it true just because he said it. Agreed?
Then the next question is what did tip you to belief that 30-years later witness claim was true? Was a factor in there that you want it to be true (your own question to you)?
A first question in assessing a witness making a new sensational claim 30 years later for the first time (publicly) is always asked by investigative journalists. Did this witness tell others privately of this earlier or from the original time? Answer in Barrett’s case: no. Second question investigative journalists ask: is there positive corroboration from other evidence or witnesses to the late sensational claim? Answer: none known at that time. There was a wallet, that is not in dispute, but there is no positive evidence it was considered crime scene evidence by police, and there is a plausible explanation for it (as I hsve outlined related to the Tippit revolver incident recovery). Therefore the Barrett story is not needed to explain what otherwise has no conceivable reasonable other explanation.
Is it the personal character and credibility of the witness, Barrett? An argument can be made that he tried to incriminate Oswald at earlier times through a false claim, of which the later 30-year claim is similar in genre (intended to incriminate Oswald on Tippit). But never mind that—30 years is time for honest witnesses to confuse details in memory. Anyone who has a grandfather who likes to tell stories of the past knows that. It isn’t dishonesty, it’s fallibility in human recall and narrative construction with the passage of time.
What to you tipped the 1990s Barrett claim from a status of initial uncertainty and justified skepticism (because: sensational; new 30 years later) to conviction or confidence that his claim was true, in terms of positive evidence (not “it could be true” argument, but what you saw as positive evidence that it was true)? What says to you: other 30 years-later stories solely dependent on witness claims with no physical evidence [referring in this case to Oswald ID at the crime scene, not existence of a wallet] are urban legends. What tilted you to conclude this case was different; this witness was not only honest but also accurately honest, in this claim first made public or known made privately either, 30 years after the fact? A question of self-examination of epistemology—why do we come to think we know what we think we know?
Martin Weidmann, it is not correct that the reason I reject the crime scene Oswald wallet first known in Hosty’s book in the late 1990’s is because that is what I want to believe. No, it is because witness claims always must be assessed case by case and that is how it looks to me evidentially as a judgment, on evidence grounds alone.
Fair enough, but the Barrett story finds, at least to some extend, corroboration in the TV footage showing a uniformed police officer (likely Croy) and another man are looking at what seems to be a wallet. For a Hidell ID being found in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car there is no corroboration whatsoever.
If anything, I have a bias to want to read the evidence in a way that Oswald is innocent, which I have to attempt consciously not to interfere with objectivity (if that is possible). But what about yourself. You will agree, I believe, that upon first encounter of the Barrett story from 1990’s with its sensational claim, that cannot automatically, right off the bat, be known true or false. No witness saying something out of the blue 30 years later makes it true just because he said it. Agreed?[/b]
Yes, I agree that when somebody comes forward with a story, thirty years after the fact, it can not automatically be relied upon as being true or false. People build up false memories all the time and sometimes they make false claims on purpose, for whatever reason. But I don't see Barrett as somebody who would do that. So, the first question that needs to be asked is; why would a retired FBI agent suddenly tell a story about a 30 years old event, when he possibly wasn't even aware of the fact that there was footage that to some extend corroborates his story. That's the coincidence I can not get passed to dismiss Barrett's story outright.
But there is more circumstantial evidence. Together with Capt Westbrook, C.T. Walker was at the Tippit crime scene before going to the Texas Theater. This means that if there was a wallet found at the Tippit scene, Walker was there to witness it.
Now let's compare stories;
Story 1: Bentley said he took a wallet from Oswald in the car but does not mention finding a Hidell ID. In his report he says he initialed the revolver (allegedly taken from Oswald) and turned it over tl Lt. Baker, together with "his identification". Gerald Hill says in his WC testimony this happened at around 4:00 PM.
Story 2: C.T. Walker says in his WC testimony that he had the revolver and the suspects identification when Oswald was brought into the homicide bureau. Guy Rose said in his testimony that he arrived at City Hall just after Oswald had been brought in and that he was given a wallet by an unidentified person (which could be a patrolman). He then talked to Oswald and found the Hidell ID in the wallet. This all happened somewhere between 1:30 and 2:00 PM. We know from the receipt that the wallet and the S & W revolver were submitted to the evidence bureau at 3:35 PM
I don't see how the wallet in both stories could be the same one. So, what's a possible explanation? If we disregard the obvious contradiction of the revolver's chain of custody, and only focus on the wallet; it needs to be considered that C.T. Walker was at the Tippit crime scene. The only way I can fit Bentley's wallet story and Walker's wallet story in one narrative is by concluding that Bentley did in fact take a wallet from Oswald, which did not contain the Hidell ID, and kept it until turning it over to Lt Baker at around 4:00 PM, and Walker had the wallet found at the Tippit scene which he brought into City Hall where it was given to Guy Rose and subsequently was submitted to the evidence bureau at 3:35 PM.
If anybody can come with with another plausible explanation to square the two stories, I would love to hear it!
-
Yes.
He never told us. It's a little late to ask him now.
It doesn't need to make sense to you. It made sense to Oswald. He was calling the shots in this episode.
This is a logical fallacy CTs often fall into. They can't understand why Oswald made the decisions he did and did the things he did. They put themselves in Oswald's shoes and think they wouldn't have done that. That's nice but irrelevant. Oswald did the things he thought was best for him. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to anybody but him.
No, it is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy would be to assume that Oswald "should have" been thinking and acting in a particular way or "would have" been thinking and acting as I think I would have done. Oswald had shot Tippit three times in the chest and then in the right temple either as Tippit was falling or was already on the ground - that's simply evidence as to what occurred. (I was thinking that Oswald had walked over the the fallen Tippit and administered the head shot, although now I don't see that; even Myers, however, describes all the shots as "point blank range.") The shot to the temple of a falling or fallen officer is the sort of thing that criminal profilers often associate with rage and a possible prior relationship. It's not out of bounds to ask "What, if anything, might this tell us?" As Martin pointed out, Oswald's presence at that location, Tippit's stop and the shooting itself are unusual in several respects. Again, it's not out of bounds to ask "What, if anything, might this tell us?" The question could lead to avenues of inquiry and then to evidence showing that there was more to the encounter than the crime scene evidence might suggest.
-
Martin Weidmann— from rechecking the wallet police accounts Bentley says he gave it to Baker. I would not rely on Hill much at all because he is late and Hill I have found otherwise filled with basic fact errors and confusions, he’s one of the less reliable witnesses as to accuracy as witnesses go. But Rose and Walker also said they saw Oswald’s wallet so it wasn’t turned in until later to be bagged as evidence and stored. There seems nothing direct from Baker on what he exactly did with it after receiving from Bentley meaning there is no hard evidence (from Baker) that anything is amiss. Weak chain of custody is not the same as positive evidence anything is amiss.
That is, it all can be harmonized by the wallet being reviewed by more than one officer after Bentley handed it over, Oswald questioned about it, etc. then (despite lack of specific paperwork on this) it becomes the bagged and logged Oswald arrest wallet evidence. There is no hard or positive evidence in this calling for supposition of a second wallet from the crime scene being substituted. You can make a scenario of such a substitution but that is argument from possibility which begs the question of how do you know that must have happened. If a second wallet entered and was substituted then you have additional complications raised of a coverup of the first one, officers in on coverup of deception etc. it is no evidence to say police were corrupt otherwise so could be here. That again is argument from possibility not positive evidence that that is the explanation in this case. Which again comes back to, why assume this in the first place.
You have mentioned several times a perception that the WFAA film of the wallet adds positive weight to the Barrett claim as credible. But no—Barrett was there and the wallet was there and Westbrook was there. Barrett is correct on all that but that is not the point. The point is Barrett’s claim that Westbrook’s inquiry to him about the Oswald ID happened THEN. The film of the wallet goes to nothing in confirming Barrett on that first-ever claim 30 years later, which is the point.
-
Martin Weidmann— from rechecking the wallet police accounts Bentley says he gave it to Baker. I would not rely on Hill much at all because he is late and Hill I have found otherwise filled with basic fact errors and confusions, he’s one of the less reliable witnesses as to accuracy as witnesses go. But Rose, Carroll, and Walker also said they saw Oswald’s wallet so it wasn’t turned in until later to be bagged as evidence and stored. There seems nothing direct from Baker on what he exactly did with it after receiving from Bentley meaning there is no hard evidence (from Baker) that anything is amiss. Weak chain of custody is not the same as positive evidence anything is amiss.
That is, it all can be harmonized by the wallet being reviewed by more than one officer after Bentley handed it over, Oswald questioned about it, etc. then (despite lack of specific paperwork on this) it becomes the bagged and logged Oswald arrest wallet evidence. There is no hard or positive evidence in this calling for supposition of a second wallet from the crime scene being substituted. You can make a scenario of such a substitution but that is argument from possibility which begs the question of how do you know that must have happened. If a second wallet entered and was substituted then you have additional complications raised of a coverup of the first one, officers in on coverup of deception etc. it is no evidence to say police were corrupt otherwise so could be here. That again is argument from possibility not positive evidence that that is the explanation in this case. Which again comes back to, why assume this in the first place.
You have mentioned several times a perception that the WFAA film of the wallet adds positive weight to the Barrett claim as credible. But no—Barrett was there and the wallet was there and Westbrook was there. Barrett is correct on all that but that is not the point. The point is Barrett’s claim that Westbrook’s inquiry to him about the Oswald ID happened THEN. The film of the wallet goes to nothing in confirming Barrett on that first-ever claim 30 years later, which is the point.
Martin Weidmann— from rechecking the wallet police accounts Bentley says he gave it to Baker. I would not rely on Hill much at all because he is late and Hill I have found otherwise filled with basic fact errors and confusions, he’s one of the less reliable witnesses as to accuracy as witnesses go.
What do you mean by "he is late"? Why are you so selective in what you believe and don't believe. Hill said he had the revolver, allegedly taken from Oswald, from the moment of the arrest until the marking of the revolver. That constitutes a chain of custody for a revolver. Are you now telling me I can't rely on Hill for that chain of custody?
But Rose, Carroll, and Walker also said they saw Oswald’s wallet so it wasn’t turned in until later to be bagged as evidence and stored.
No. Rose, Carroll and Walker never said they saw "Oswald's wallet". Rose said he was given a wallet which was claimed to belong to Oswald by an unknown person. Walker said he had a wallet but not that it belonged to Oswald, as he had no way of knowing first hand. At best he could have concluded that based on what was in the wallet. Carroll drove the car and I can't find any report or statement in which he claims he saw Oswald's wallet.
Having said that, I don't understand how Rose, Carroll and Walker seeing a wallet means it wasn't turned in later.
There seems nothing direct from Baker on what he exactly did with it after receiving from Bentley meaning there is no hard evidence (from Baker) that anything is amiss.
That's a silly argument. Just because you can't find what Baker did with the wallet he got from Bentley, doesn't tell you anything either way about something being amiss.
Weak chain of custody is not the same as positive evidence anything is amiss.
What chain of custody are you even talking about?
That is, it all can be harmonized by the wallet being reviewed by more than one officer after Bentley handed it over, Oswald questioned about it, etc. then (despite lack of specific paperwork on this) it becomes the bagged and logged Oswald arrest wallet evidence.
Ok, you say it can be harmonized, so harmonize it!
There is no hard or positive evidence in this calling for supposition of a second wallet from the crime scene being substituted. You can make a scenario of such a substitution but that is argument from possibility which begs the question of how do you know that must have happened.
Nobody is talking about hard or positive evidence, whatever you mean by that. I said there is a circumstantial case that can be made based on the known information. All the elements of that circumstantial case are coming from statements made by the DPD officers involved. If you feel you can provide an alternative scenario for the circumstantial evidence, then provide it!
If a second wallet entered and was substituted then you have additional complications raised of a coverup of the first one, officers in on coverup of deception etc. it is no evidence to say police were corrupt otherwise so could be here.
There are no additional complications. DPD and Henry Wade have been destroyed by the innocence project in many cases where they got a conviction with manipulated evidence. Please don't give me this "police officers wouldn't do this" BS!
For somebody who claims to view evidence to the benefit of Oswald, all I am seeing is somebody trying to do his damnedest to dismiss any piece of evidence you don't like.
You've written a whole post with vague complaints and denials, but what you haven't done is square the two stories of evidence I have pointed out in my previous post. Apart from throwning Hill under the bus, all you've done is desperately trying to manipulate the time line without actually providing a plausible explanation for anything.
-
Martin W.— a couple of misunderstandings. I didn’t mean Hill was wrong on the 4 pm but I didn’t make that clear enough, that ones on me. I thought you cited him from a later time and that is the kind of thing with Hill one needs to verify and fact check more than normal with Hill, but in this case it agrees with the accounts of others, Walker and Rose, of the wallet being near Oswald and looked at. The harmonization would be Baker first got it but then it was still lying around and others were looking at it, then later (your Hill 4 pm) it was turned in for the storage room and safekeeping. My reference to weak chain of custody was to the Oswald wallet of Bentley through to the 4 pm.
At one point you agreed with me, restating what I said, but believed you were disagreeing. You agreed with me that what Baker said gives no information in establishing anything amiss with the wallet, then said it was silly for me to say what you just said too.
What I fail to see is believing a sensational claim made for the first time 30 years later with zero evidence either that witness or anyone else on earth ever said or heard of the same thing at any time in the previous 30 years, and which is well explained as a simple mistake (Barrett in later memory mistakenly combining a real asking from Westbrook about Oswald wallet ID with Barrett’s memory of being with Westbrook and a wallet at the crime scene, as if that is when Westbrook asked). It’s near zero on the credibility scale on that profile grounds of the claim alone. But once beliefs get started, they have long lives.
I think it makes sense it was Oswald’s wallet at the police station straight through from the theater, and no good reason to suppose a substitution. There’s no actual sound reason against it, and the ID said to be from it has been authenticated as Oswald’s handwriting at points. On the “Hidell” ID issue, I would like to understand that better too and I can think of three scenario possibilities in explanation that I would consider “starters” (viable possible cases for), but none of those involve a secret conveyance of a wallet with Oswald and Hidell ID from the crime scene.
There is a real downside to buying into mistaken theories or reconstructions (as I believe this crime scene Oswald ID Barrett claim is), beyond simply being in error: they create blindness to any real leads and potential real solutions to problems. I’ve seen a hundred examples of such a phenomenon. On this wallet issue I think I’m done here, thank you for the civility of the discussion.
-
Yes.
He never told us. It's a little late to ask him now.
It doesn't need to make sense to you. It made sense to Oswald. He was calling the shots in this episode.
This is a logical fallacy CTs often fall into. They can't understand why Oswald made the decisions he did and did the things he did. They put themselves in Oswald's shoes and think they wouldn't have done that. That's nice but irrelevant. Oswald did the things he thought was best for him. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to anybody but him.
The best evidence of Oswald's ability to reach the crime scene within the timeframe of the murder is that multiple witnesses place him there. There is no doubt that Oswald was at the scene when the murder occurred. If he was there, then debating whether he had time to be there is pointless. The thing proves itself. The CTer mindset is to ignore multiple eyewitnesses who place Oswald at the scene with a gun and instead nitpick the timeline. It's laughable kook logic.
-
The best evidence of Oswald's ability to reach the crime scene within the timeframe of the murder is that multiple witnesses place him there. There is no doubt that Oswald was at the scene when the murder occurred. If he was there, then debating whether he had time to be there is pointless. The thing proves itself. The CTer mindset is to ignore multiple eyewitnesses who place Oswald at the scene with a gun and instead nitpick the timeline. It's laughable kook logic.
I don’t have any issue on timing, but you should be aware there are grounds for doubt Oswald was at the crime scene. The single strongest crime scene witness of all, because of how close he was, from only 15-20 feet away, testified he had an excellent view of the back of the killer’s head and described a block cut rear hairline which, as it stands, is highly credible stand-alone exonerating testimony, given that all photos of Oswald show him with a taper rear hairline. For good measure this single best crime scene witness of all at the crime scene was a barber. Hard to beat that for a witness favorable to reasonable doubt.
No less than 8 (!) crime scene witnesses or witnesses of the fleeing gunman testified that that gunman was wearing a white or light-colored shirt, underneath a partly open zippered jacket. As you know Oswald was seen by Brewer and arrested in a dark brown shirt. This is not an easy massive number of witness testimonies that can easily be accounted for as mistakes. Reasonable doubt grounds number two.
Multiple witness reports had the gunman’s hair described as “black” or very dark brown. Oswald’s appears to have been medium brown, and I am not aware of any independent testimony to seeing Oswald’s hair as “black”.
There is a good argument that two sets of fingerprints lifted from the Tippit patrol car 20 minutes after the crime were left by the killer. Those prints have been found by an expert analysis to be conclusively not a match to Oswald. Those prints hsve never been proven to not be the killer’s.
The witnesses who identified the gunman as Oswald are less decisive than it appears. For some reason few seem aware that since the 1964 time of the Warren Commission studies have established—this is mainstream and not too controversial—that witness facial recognition (in cases where the witness does not know the person already) is not reliable at over 50 feet. Reason: the human eye loses detail with distance, necessary for facial recognition. This lack of reliability overrides even when the witness expresses confidence or certainty. There goes Callaway (56 feet) and all of the Warren Reynolds auto place witnesses, right there. The Davis sisters in law both said they saw the killers face only in profile not full face.
This is not to say there isn’t a case against Oswald from the shell hulls weapon ID if one does not consider chain of custody issues with those hulls to be significant, and there is an argument from coincidence that Oswald was nearby in the midst of a live shooter police manhunt. But the eyewitness identifications incriminating Oswald range from poor to medium quality, none exceptionally strong, with the argument for incrimination relying on the number of them more than their quality.
There is zero weight toward incrimination of Oswald from the killer’s jacket (CE 162)’s fibers, from any expert testimony. Thst is why neither the FBI nor WC who knew of those fibers ever claimed they were positive weight evidence of a match to Oswald’s brown shirt, because no expert ever testified to that and it is unlikely any would. Non-expert interpretations don’t count. It is like saying common cooking ingredients prove a certain kind of cake was made. As for the jacket itself, Marina testified it was Lee’s, and Buell Frazier testified even more emphatically that it definitely was not—that he knew Lee’s gray work jacket and it was woolen and gray, not the off-white light tan cloth CE 162 which would easily pick up dirt and not be too practical as a daily work jacket in dusty or dirty surroundings doing manual labor. One is not right between Marina and Buell, take your pick.
I personally believe there is a case Oswald may not have been the gunman despite appearances, and that Tippit’s killer was a professional, Craford. Craford was a self-confessed hitman at this stage of his life, he was left-handed as the fingerprints, if they were from the killer, indicate the killer was. He had a full head of hair so dark brown that it appeared black. Craford’s own daughter told me that as a child growing up for years she thought his hair was black until belatedly learning it was actually dark brown. EXACTLY the police description of the killer’s hair color in the first hour, from Callaway and one other witness I believe as the police sources on that, who saw and told the color of the killer’s hair. And the daughter told me her father had a habit of talking to himself, compare Scoggins hearing the killer doing that (not a practice or habit known of Oswald).
I wrote a bit on a case for Craford instead of Oswald on Tippit in a way that has not previously been argued, ie original stuff, though I have not had time to write the rest of the case and don’t know when I will have time. But if interested you can see the start of the case here: https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1850.
And Craford is known independently to have been mistakenly identified as Oswald by sincere witnesses, and there goes the perception of strength of the witnesses’ Oswald identifications some more, if it’s between Oswald and Craford, could be either one from the witness evidence.
Tippit’s killer came to the crime scene walking from the east on foot consistent with an origin point in the approximate vicinity of Jack Ruby’s apartment. Craford was driven home from the Vegas Club by Ruby at ca 3 am the night before and Ruby could have driven him to his apartment instead of to the Carousel Club as normally. Both Ruby and Senator, from his separate bedroom, left the apartment Friday morning. Craford could have been in Ruby’s room without Senator knowing it, then had the empty apartment to himself until the time came to walk to the crime scene 4 blocks west for an expected arrival of Tippit to flag down as he arrived and kill him as a contract execution. Just saying.
Also, Oswald did have a loaded gun on him at his arrest, he did resist arrest and he did punch an officer. But he did not attempt to shoot an officer, and he did not say “it’s all over now” when he first stood up. He said that after he was subdued and had stopped resisting. And the failed attempt to shoot evidenced by the “click” everyone heard was McDonald attempting unsuccessfully to shoot Oswald with Oswald’s own gun. This is not speculation but fact, from confession of McDonald that he got control of Oswald’s revolver, pointed it intentionally into Oswald’s stomach, and started intentionally to pull the trigger to shoot him. That’s not speculation, that’s McDonald himself on YouTube. But Bentley’s hand was injured blocking the hammer which is why McDonald’s attempt to shoot Oswald failed. It wasn’t premeditated on McDonald’s part, to shoot Oswald with his own gun. It followed Oswald punching McDonald in the face. Oswald no more pulled that trigger than Anthony Pretti in Minneapolis tried to shoot the iCE officers. McDonald claimed Oswald did but McDonald clearly did once the matter is studied, and it is not even ambiguous. Not that this point is decisive on the Tippit case but just to clear the deck on that particular long-standing claim.
Anyone is still free to consider Oswald guilty on Tippit. I’m just saying there is another possible side to the story on serious evidence grounds having nothing to do with conspiracy theorizing. There are grounds for reasonable doubt on Oswald on Tippit. I won’t be spending a lot of time defending this further at this time, but for what it’s worth, a few things to think about here.
-
Martin W.— a couple of misunderstandings. I didn’t mean Hill was wrong on the 4 pm but I didn’t make that clear enough, that ones on me. I thought you cited him from a later time and that is the kind of thing with Hill one needs to verify and fact check more than normal with Hill, but in this case it agrees with the accounts of others, Walker and Rose, of the wallet being near Oswald and looked at. The harmonization would be Baker first got it but then it was still lying around and others were looking at it, then later (your Hill 4 pm) it was turned in for the storage room and safekeeping. My reference to weak chain of custody was to the Oswald wallet of Bentley through to the 4 pm.
At one point you agreed with me, restating what I said, but believed you were disagreeing. You agreed with me that what Baker said gives no information in establishing anything amiss with the wallet, then said it was silly for me to say what you just said too.
What I fail to see is believing a sensational claim made for the first time 30 years later with zero evidence either that witness or anyone else on earth ever said or heard of the same thing at any time in the previous 30 years, and which is well explained as a simple mistake (Barrett in later memory mistakenly combining a real asking from Westbrook about Oswald wallet ID with Barrett’s memory of being with Westbrook and a wallet at the crime scene, as if that is when Westbrook asked). It’s near zero on the credibility scale on that profile grounds of the claim alone. But once beliefs get started, they have long lives.
I think it makes sense it was Oswald’s wallet at the police station straight through from the theater, and no good reason to suppose a substitution. There’s no actual sound reason against it, and the ID said to be from it has been authenticated as Oswald’s handwriting at points. On the “Hidell” ID issue, I would like to understand that better too and I can think of three scenario possibilities in explanation that I would consider “starters” (viable possible cases for), but none of those involve a secret conveyance of a wallet with Oswald and Hidell ID from the crime scene.
There is a real downside to buying into mistaken theories or reconstructions (as I believe this crime scene Oswald ID Barrett claim is), beyond simply being in error: they create blindness to any real leads and potential real solutions to problems. I’ve seen a hundred examples of such a phenomenon. On this wallet issue I think I’m done here, thank you for the civility of the discussion.
I would have loved to read an explanation how Bentley and Walker could both have a wallet, when in reality there was only one.
-
Greg, I read on The Education Forum (now shut down) that you had information on the security guard Holmes who took the pistol and wallet from Callaway and returned it to Officer Croy. Can you post what you know about this here?
-
Greg, I read on The Education Forum (now shut down) that you had information on the security guard Holmes who took the pistol and wallet from Callaway and returned it to Officer Croy. Can you post what you know about this here?
Hi Eric-- I don't have any information on Holmes other than what Myers reported. (Myers' book is available as ebook on amazon inexpensively.) Here is David von Pein with some basic information on Holmes and Callaway: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-2.html.
-
I would have loved to read an explanation how Bentley and Walker could both have a wallet, when in reality there was only one.
It goes like this:
Walker, Hill, Bentley, Oswald, a priest, a rabbi and a bear enter the Dallas Muncipal Building. Walker, Hill, and Bentley escort Oswald to the DPD offices on the third floor, while the priest, rabbi, and bear leave the Municipal Building and walk into a bar across the street. Once on the third floor, Hill, Bentley, and Walker take Oswald to the Homicide and Robbery Bureau. Hill and Bentley then proceed to the Personnel office, leaving Oswald, Walker, and the wallet in the H&R Bureau suite. Meanwhile, the priest, the rabbi and the bear are at the bar, impatiently waiting for you to finish the joke.
-
It goes like this:
Walker, Hill, Bentley, Oswald, a priest, a rabbi and a bear enter the Dallas Muncipal Building. Walker, Hill, and Bentley escort Oswald to the DPD offices on the third floor, while the priest, rabbi, and bear leave the Municipal Building and walk into a bar across the street. Once on the third floor, Hill, Bentley, and Walker take Oswald to the Homicide and Robbery Bureau. Hill and Bentley then proceed to the Personnel office, leaving Oswald, Walker, and the wallet in the H&R Bureau suite. Meanwhile, the priest, the rabbi and the bear are at the bar, impatiently waiting for you to finish the joke.
Compared with some of the nonsense I read on this forum, this one seems plausible. It's far more detailed than any conspiracy theory I've read lately.
-
It goes like this:
Walker, Hill, Bentley, Oswald, a priest, a rabbi and a bear enter the Dallas Muncipal Building. Walker, Hill, and Bentley escort Oswald to the DPD offices on the third floor, while the priest, rabbi, and bear leave the Municipal Building and walk into a bar across the street. Once on the third floor, Hill, Bentley, and Walker take Oswald to the Homicide and Robbery Bureau. Hill and Bentley then proceed to the Personnel office, leaving Oswald, Walker, and the wallet in the H&R Bureau suite. Meanwhile, the priest, the rabbi and the bear are at the bar, impatiently waiting for you to finish the joke.
Thank you for confirming that there is no LN explanation for how Bentley and Walker could both have a wallet, when in reality there was only one. :D
-
I would have loved to read an explanation how Bentley and Walker could both have a wallet, when in reality there was only one.
I do not follow where are you getting that Baker maintained possession of the wallet on his person in a way contradicting others having access to it, after he received it from Bentley. Based on Walker and maybe Rose's account too, it seems like there were multiple officers browsing through it after Baker received it. Also, there is a phenomenon in which multiple persons present at an event will all claim to have personally done the same thing. e.g. there are at least four officers who claimed personally to be the first to have discovered the rifle on the 6th floor TSBD! There are several officers who claim they were the one personally who told Fritz that the man he was looking for, Oswald, had just been brought in under arrest. Several of the officers present at Oswald's arrest claimed they personally were the ones who put the handcuffs on Oswald, etc. It isn't evidence of multiple rifles on the 6th floor, multiple Oswalds handcuffed in the Texas Theatre, or multiple wallets with Oswald ID at the police station. Its messiness of hearsay and witness accounts.
-
I do not follow where are you getting that Baker maintained possession of the wallet on his person in a way contradicting others having access to it, after he received it from Bentley. Based on Walker and maybe Rose's account too, it seems like there were multiple officers browsing through it after Baker received it. Also, there is a phenomenon in which multiple persons present at an event will all claim to have personally done the same thing. e.g. there are at least four officers who claimed personally to be the first to have discovered the rifle on the 6th floor TSBD! There are several officers who claim they were the one personally who told Fritz that the man he was looking for, Oswald, had just been brought in under arrest. Several of the officers present at Oswald's arrest claimed they personally were the ones who put the handcuffs on Oswald, etc. It isn't evidence of multiple rifles on the 6th floor, multiple Oswalds handcuffed in the Texas Theatre, or multiple wallets with Oswald ID at the police station. Its messiness of hearsay and witness accounts.
I'm not sure what to make of this word salad, but I'll give it a try.
I do not follow where are you getting that Baker maintained possession of the wallet on his person in a way contradicting others having access to it, after he received it from Bentley.
I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. According to Bentley (and Hill) Baker received the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald some two hours after Oswald arrived at City Hall. By then Guy Rose had already talked to Oswald and a wallet had been submitted to the evidence room.
Based on Walker and maybe Rose's account too, it seems like there were multiple officers browsing through it after Baker received it.
It seems?... No, Bentley said he had the wallet he took from Oswald until he gave it to lt Baker at around 4:00 PM.... that's at least two hours later than Guy Rose talked to Oswald.
Also, there is a phenomenon in which multiple persons present at an event will all claim to have personally done the same thing.
And it doesn't concern you that the investigators did not want to find out what the actual story is? Besides, when you are a police officer, you either have or don't have evidence. Are you now claiming that Walker just made up that he had a wallet?
e.g. there are at least four officers who claimed personally to be the first to have discovered the rifle on the 6th floor TSBD!
And you don't care that they never investigated those claim to preserve the chain of custody?
There are several officers who claim they were the one personally who told Fritz that the man he was looking for, Oswald, had just been brought in under arrest. Several of the officers present at Oswald's arrest claimed they personally were the ones who put the handcuffs on Oswald, etc. It isn't evidence of multiple rifles on the 6th floor, multiple Oswalds handcuffed in the Texas Theatre, or multiple wallets with Oswald ID at the police station. Its messiness of hearsay and witness accounts.
No, it's evidence of police incompetence
-
Thank you for confirming that there is no LN explanation for how Bentley and Walker could both have a wallet, when in reality there was only one. :D
LN's don't need an explanation as to how Walker and Bentley both said they had Oswald's wallet: Walker didn't claim he had the wallet, just the Hidell ID. :D, indeed!
Here's his testimony to the WC:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/walker_c.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/walker_c.htm)
and here's his report to Curry regarding his activity that day:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339196/?q=report%20walker (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339196/?q=report%20walker)
-
This focus on wallets is another fine example of CTs focusing on all the wrong things. The right thing to focus on are these.
1. When arrested, Oswald had in his possession the only revolver in the world which could have fired the shells that the shooter emptied from his revolver as he fled the scene.
2. Oswald had the same two makes of bullets, Remingtons and Winchesters, that were removed from Tippit's body.
3. Oswald's jacket was found on the route the shooter had fled after shooting Tippit.
4. When he was arrested, Oswald tried to shoot the arresting officer.
5. Numerous witnesses IDed Oswald either as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene with a gun in his hand. I don't normally place much faith in UNCORROBORATED witness accounts. These witnesses are corroborated by the fact the person they IDed had the murder weapon in his possession when arrested.
Knowing all this, do we really need to focus on wallets to figure out who shot JDT?
-
LN's don't need an explanation as to how Walker and Bentley both said they had Oswald's wallet: Walker didn't claim he had the wallet, just the Hidell ID. :D, indeed!
Here's his testimony to the WC:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/walker_c.htm (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/walker_c.htm)
and here's his report to Curry regarding his activity that day:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339196/?q=report%20walker (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339196/?q=report%20walker)
Semantics.
What would Walker be doing with only a Hidell ID? Where did he get it?
-
This focus on wallets is another fine example of CTs focusing on all the wrong things. The right thing to focus on are these.
1. When arrested, Oswald had in his possession the only revolver in the world which could have fired the shells that the shooter emptied from his revolver as he fled the scene.
2. Oswald had the same two makes of bullets, Remingtons and Winchesters, that were removed from Tippit's body.
3. Oswald's jacket was found on the route the shooter had fled after shooting Tippit.
4. When he was arrested, Oswald tried to shoot the arresting officer.
5. Numerous witnesses IDed Oswald either as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene with a gun in his hand. I don't normally place much faith in UNCORROBORATED witness accounts. These witnesses are corroborated by the fact the person they IDed had the murder weapon in his possession when arrested.
Knowing all this, do we really need to focus on wallets to figure out who shot JDT?
When somebody tells me I have to focus on particular pieces of evidence, it only tells me that they don't want me to look beyond what they want me to believe.
None of the 5 items you have listed, we actually know. There are all sorts of problems which you are unwilling to see or discuss.
Knowing all this, do we really need to focus on wallets to figure out who shot JDT?
Yes, when two police officers tell a different story about a crucial piece of evidence, it needs to be investigated. The fact that it wasn't is telling a story by itself.
-
When somebody tells me I have to focus on particular pieces of evidence, it only tells me that they don't want me beyond what they want me to believe.
I really don't give a Helicopter :) what you focus on. I just find it silly.
None of the 5 items you have listed, we actually know. There are all sorts of problems which you are unwilling to see or discuss.
Problems. What problems would that be? Are you denying the shells recovered at the scene could only have been fired by the revolver had in his possession when he tried to shoot the arresting officer?
Are you denying Oswald had the same two makes of bullets that were recovered from Tippit's body? Are you denying Oswald's jacket was found on his escape route? Are you denying Oswald tried to shoot the arresting officer? Are you denying that numerous witnesses IDed Oswald? Just which of the items that I listed do you have problems with?
Knowing all this, do we really need to focus on wallets to figure out who shot JDT?
Yes, when two police officers tell a different story about a crucial piece of evidence, it needs to be investigated. The fact that it wasn't is telling a story by itself.
OK, you go ahead and investigate it and report back to us what you find.
-
I really don't give a Helicopter :) what you focus on. I just find it silly.
Problems. What problems would that be? Are you denying the shells recovered at the scene could only have been fired by the revolver had in his possession when he tried to shoot the arresting officer?
Are you denying Oswald had the same two makes of bullets that were recovered from Tippit's body? Are you denying Oswald's jacket was found on his escape route? Are you denying Oswald tried to shoot the arresting officer? Are you denying that numerous witnesses IDed Oswald? Just which of the items that I listed do you have problems with?
OK, you go ahead and investigate it and report back to us what you find.
I really don't give a Helicopter :) what you focus on. I just find it silly.
Of course you do... just like I think you're a fanatical zealot full of BS.
Problems. What problems would that be? Are you denying the shells recovered at the scene could only have been fired by the revolver had in his possession when he tried to shoot the arresting officer?
Let's see if I can mess with your narrow minded brain for a bit! No I don't doubt that the shells recovered were matched to the revolver now in evidence. The problem is that there is no chain of custody for the revolver!
Are you denying Oswald had the same two makes of bullets that were recovered from Tippit's body?
I can't deny or confirm that. What I do know is that Tippit was shot four time by two different bullets and that the shells found at the scene did not match up with the bullets.
Are you denying Oswald's jacket was found on his escape route?
What jacket are you talking about? The jacket found by officers under a car, described as being white, or the gray jacket that Buell Wesley Frazier said Oswald was wearing during the trip to Irving on Thursday afternoon?
Are you denying Oswald tried to shoot the arresting officer?
I wasn't present when it allegedly happened. Neither were you, yet you seem to be willing to jump to conclusions without knowing the actual facts.
Are you denying that numerous witnesses IDed Oswald?
No, that's a fact. I just wonder about the way the line ups were conducted. In my experience it is just about impossible that all the witnesses at a line up identify the same person. There mere fact that none of the witnesses was even reluctant makes the whole line up questionable. This, by far, would be the most interesting part of a trial against Oswald for me. I would have loved to observe these witnesses on the stand being questioned by a defense lawyer.
Just which of the items that I listed do you have problems with?
I have just told you.
OK, you go ahead and investigate it and report back to us what you find.
There is no need to report back to you because you will never ever accept any of it. You are not in a cult for nothing.
-
I really don't give a Helicopter :) what you focus on. I just find it silly.
Of course you do... just like I think you're a fanatical zealot full of BS.
Problems. What problems would that be? Are you denying the shells recovered at the scene could only have been fired by the revolver had in his possession when he tried to shoot the arresting officer?
Let's see if I can mess with your narrow minded brain for a bit! No I don't doubt that the shells recovered were matched to the revolver now in evidence. The problem is that there is no chain of custody for the revolver!
WTF???!!!
Are you denying Oswald had the same two makes of bullets that were recovered from Tippit's body?
I can't deny or confirm that. What I do know is that Tippit was shot four time by two different bullets and that the shells found at the scene did not match up with the bullets.
The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.
Are you denying Oswald's jacket was found on his escape route?
What jacket are you talking about? The jacket found by officers under a car, described as being white, or the gray jacket that Buell Wesley Frazier said Oswald was wearing during the trip to Irving on Thursday afternoon?
Why would you assume Frazier would remember such a detail? Marina IDed the jacket as belonging to her husband.
Are you denying Oswald tried to shoot the arresting officer?
I wasn't present when it allegedly happened. Neither were you, yet you seem to be willing to jump to conclusions without knowing the actual facts.
That was the statement of the arresting officer. is that what you consider "jumping to conclusions"
Are you denying that numerous witnesses IDed Oswald?
No, that's a fact. I just wonder about the way the line ups were conducted. In my experience it is just about impossible that all the witnesses at a line up identify the same person. There mere fact that none of the witnesses was even reluctant makes the whole line up questionable. This, by far, would be the most interesting part of a trial against Oswald for me. I would have loved to observe these witnesses on the stand being questioned by a defense lawyer.
Are you saying that all of these witnesses erroneously IDed Oswald and by a remarkable coincidence, they wrongfully IDed the same guy who had possession of the gun that had fired the shells found at the scene of the crime.
It's amazing the things CTs are willing to convince themselves of in order to argue for Oswald's innocence.
Just which of the items that I listed do you have problems with?
I have just told you.
Yes you did. And I pointed out how lame your answers were.
OK, you go ahead and investigate it and report back to us what you find.
There is no need to report back to you because you will never ever accept any of it. You are not in a cult for nothing.
I am very comfortable with my beliefs. I don't have to invent cockamamie excuses for not accepting the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
-
WTF???!!!
I figured that would be over your head. You may not like it but a solid chain of custody is an absolute requirement to determine if a piece of evidence is authentic. That's why the revolver and the jacket were marked by several officers, including some who could not have been part of the chain of custody to begin with. That's also why the WC asked the FBI to reconfirm the chain of custody for all sorts of items, including CE 399. LNs frequently claim that the revolver is authentic and the chain of custody is valid because Hill identified his marking on the weapon during his testimony.
Now let's examine what really happened. Bob Carroll, who drove the car from the Texas Theater to City Hall, gave Gerald Hill a revolver which he said it belonged to the suspect and was taken from him inside the theater. But according to Carroll's testimony, that's not what really happend
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.
So, here we have the first problem: Carroll can not positively confirm who the person was that held the revolver when he jerked it away from him.
The second problem is that C.T. Walker, who also was in the car, says in his testimony that he had the revolver, when Oswald was brought into City Hall.
And the third problem is that patrolman Bardin delivered a S.W. revolver to the evidence room at 3:25 PM, but Hill claims he marked the revolver and gave it to Lt Baker about half an hour later.
How anybody can call the chain of custody solid is beyond me.
The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.
Yeah, a very convenient story and one of many the WC came up with. The problem is that there isn't a shred of evidence for it. If they really believed there was a fifth shot (not a single witness said there was) they could easily have searched the Tippit crime scene for the bullet and shell. The reality is that they never bothered!
Why would you assume Frazier would remember such a detail? Marina IDed the jacket as belonging to her husband.
I don't assume anything. Frazier said it in his WC testimony. And yes Marina did identify the jacket as one of two owned by Lee. Now, I will freely admit that Frazier's testimony about the gray jacket is somewhat strange in as much as that he talks about a "more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket" which is an odd way to describe CE 162. However, as Marina confirmed that Lee only had two jackets and Frazier said that on Friday morning Oswald was wearing the jacket with big sleeves, I would suggest that he was talking about CE 163, which only leaves the gray jacket CE 162 as the one Oswald would have worn on Thursday afternoon.
That was the statement of the arresting officer. is that what you consider "jumping to conclusions"
Are you saying that all of these witnesses erroneously IDed Oswald and by a remarkable coincidence, they wrongfully IDed the same guy who had possession of the gun that had fired the shells found at the scene of the crime.
If you are talking about McDonalds, the answer is that he never made that statement in official documents. In his WC testimony, he didn't even know for sure that the revolver was pointed at him.
Mr. BALL - Was the pistol out of his waist at that time?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Do you know any way it was pointed?
Mr. McDONALD - Well, I believe the muzzle was toward me, because the sensation came across this way. To make a movement like that, it would have to be the cylinder or the hammer.
Mr. BALL - Across your left palm?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. And my hand was directly over the pistol in this manner. More or less the butt. But not on the butt.
Only later he started to add on to his story and sensationalized it.
It's amazing the things CTs are willing to convince themselves of in order to argue for Oswald's innocence.
And it's amazing to me that LN die hards are so easily fooled. Most of the Henry Wade cases that were overturned by the innocence project involved false identifications and witness manipulation.
Yes you did. And I pointed out how lame your answers were.
Well, as you are one of the most fanatical zealots in the LN clan I was never under any illusion that you would be willing to accept or even consider anything I have said. That doesn't mean that what I have said is wrong. It just means that you are to narrow minded and superficial to deal with it honestly.
I am very comfortable with my beliefs. I don't have to invent cockamamie excuses for not accepting the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
And still here you are on a daily bases inventing all sorts of pathetic reasons to connect dots that in reality aren't there. Go figure!
-
WTF???!!!
The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.
Why would you assume Frazier would remember such a detail? Marina IDed the jacket as belonging to her husband.
That was the statement of the arresting officer. is that what you consider "jumping to conclusions"
Are you saying that all of these witnesses erroneously IDed Oswald and by a remarkable coincidence, they wrongfully IDed the same guy who had possession of the gun that had fired the shells found at the scene of the crime.
It's amazing the things CTs are willing to convince themselves of in order to argue for Oswald's innocence.
Yes you did. And I pointed out how lame your answers were.
I am very comfortable with my beliefs. I don't have to invent cockamamie excuses for not accepting the evidence of Oswald's guilt.
It's hopeless. "Martin" plays the endless Inspector Clouseau contrarian routine. He suspects everyone and he suspects no one. Nothing ever has to make sense. He won't admit to suggesting anything even by implication because he realizes the implications of his claims are not only baseless but don't add up. The only objective is to imply doubt. Like the Monty Python skit, he is "here for an argument" that goes around in circles of lunacy. Every thread dating back years has that same rabbit hole pattern. Who can possibly believe that Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and claim there is doubt of his guilt in that crime AND that the investigators who are otherwise trying to frame him suppressed the fact that his wallet was left there. The logical fallacies are literally mind boggling. Even on a forum such as this one with all manner of crazy theories that line of argument is mind blowing.
-
It's hopeless. "Martin" plays the endless Inspector Clouseau contrarian routine. He suspects everyone and he suspects no one. Nothing ever has to make sense. He won't admit to suggesting anything even by implication because he realizes the implications of his claims are not only baseless but don't add up. The only objective is to imply doubt. Like the Monty Python skit, he is "here for an argument" that goes around in circles of lunacy. Every thread dating back years has that same rabbit hole pattern. Who can possibly believe that Oswald's wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and claim there is doubt of his guilt in that crime AND that the investigators who are otherwise trying to frame him suppressed the fact that his wallet was left there. The logical fallacies are literally mind boggling. Even on a forum such as this one with all manner of crazy theories that line of argument is mind blowing.
The logical fallacies are literally mind boggling.
Make you case and give me one example of a logical fallacy
-
The WC dealt with that an gave a very reasonable answer for that. It isn't known whether any of Oswald's shots missed and it isn't known that all the shells were recovered. His S&W Model 10 had a six round cylinder so he could have fired 5 or 6 shots before reloading. With only 4 bullets and 4 shells recovered, it's very possible there could be a mismatch between the shells and the bullets as to the make of each.
I think this highlights the problem that many people have with your posts. You are cocksure that you are right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, yet your cocksureness includes an awful of "isn't known," "could be," "it's very possible," etc., qualifiers. When CTers - or even fellow LNers - rely on the same sorts of qualifiers, you immediately pooh-pooh what they say and assert that your position is entirely evidence-based.
-
Semantics.
What would Walker be doing with only a Hidell ID? Where did he get it?
MW: Semantics.
No, it's proof that you either didn't read very carefully or forgot what you read.
What would Walker be doing with only a Hidell ID? Where did he get it?
Like I said, Hill, Bentley, and Walker show up at the Homicide office with Oswald and the wallet in tow. Baker is in the Homicide office at that time. Bentley gives Baker the wallet, but leaves with Hill for the Personnel office. Walker stays behind in the room to guard Oswald for some amount of time before rejoining Hill and Bentley in the Personnel office.
-
How anybody can call the chain of custody solid is beyond me.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/f4/1a/46f41a7444919c45cb177a86aa16e02f.gif)
• Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
• Officer McDonald confirms he removed the pistol from Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.
• Officer McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll
Mr. BALL - What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD - When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
Mr. BALL. Whom did you give the gun to finally?
Mr. CARROLL. After I gave it to - Jerry Hill - that was the last time I had possession of it - possession of the gun.
• Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
Mr. BELIN. And being that he had the keys to the car, Bob Carroll drove the vehicle.
Mr. HILL. As he started to get in the car, he handed me a pistol, which he identified as the one that had been taken from the suspect in the theatre.
• Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not from the time this gun was handed to you until the time you removed these six bullets, this gun was in your possession?
Mr. HILL. The gun remained in my possession until it, from the time it was given to me until the gun was marked and all the shells were marked. They remained in my personal possession. After they were marked, they were released by me to Detective T. L. Baker of the homicide bureau. He came to the personnel office and requested that they be given to him, and I marked them and turned them over to him at this point.
The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
• Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
• McDonald confirms he took the pistol from Oswald.
• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
• Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
• Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
• The revolver in evidence has a paper trail leading directly to Oswald's PO Box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRpXzvjk/Hidell.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7Ybf52LD/order-form-oswald-revolver.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJjQtMHr/oswald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FR12yNkc/Revolver-Owned-By-Lee-Harvey-Oswald.jpg)
JohnM
-
MW: Semantics.
No, it's proof that you either didn't read very carefully or forgot what you read.
What would Walker be doing with only a Hidell ID? Where did he get it?
Like I said, Hill, Bentley, and Walker show up at the Homicide office with Oswald and the wallet in tow. Baker is in the Homicide office at that time. Bentley gives Baker the wallet, but leaves with Hill for the Personnel office. Walker stays behind in the room to guard Oswald for some amount of time before rejoining Hill and Bentley in the Personnel office.
Like I said, Hill, Bentley, and Walker show up at the Homicide office with Oswald and the wallet in tow. Baker is in the Homicide office at that time. Bentley gives Baker the wallet, but leaves with Hill for the Personnel office. Walker stays behind in the room to guard Oswald for some amount of time before rejoining Hill and Bentley in the Personnel office.
Too bad that Guy Rose said that he arrived at City Hall just after Oswald had been brought in. At that time somebody gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to Oswald. When Rose examined the wallet he found the Hidell ID.
This all happened at least two hours before Bentley gave a wallet to Lt Baker. If anybody didn't read the testimony and reports carefully it is you.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/f4/1a/46f41a7444919c45cb177a86aa16e02f.gif)
• Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
• Officer McDonald confirms he removed the pistol from Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Your right hand?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front.
By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.
• Officer McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll
Mr. BALL - What happened when you jerked the pistol free?
Mr. McDONALD - When I jerked it free, I was down in the seats with him, with my head, some reason or other, I don't know why, and when I brought the pistol out, it grazed me across the cheek here, and I put it all the way out to the aisle, holding it by the butt. I gave the pistol to Detective Bob Carroll at that point.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
Mr. BALL. Whom did you give the gun to finally?
Mr. CARROLL. After I gave it to - Jerry Hill - that was the last time I had possession of it - possession of the gun.
• Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
Mr. BELIN. And being that he had the keys to the car, Bob Carroll drove the vehicle.
Mr. HILL. As he started to get in the car, he handed me a pistol, which he identified as the one that had been taken from the suspect in the theatre.
• Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not from the time this gun was handed to you until the time you removed these six bullets, this gun was in your possession?
Mr. HILL. The gun remained in my possession until it, from the time it was given to me until the gun was marked and all the shells were marked. They remained in my personal possession. After they were marked, they were released by me to Detective T. L. Baker of the homicide bureau. He came to the personnel office and requested that they be given to him, and I marked them and turned them over to him at this point.
The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
• Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
• McDonald confirms he took the pistol from Oswald.
• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
• Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
• Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
• The revolver in evidence has a paper trail leading directly to Oswald's PO Box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRpXzvjk/Hidell.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7Ybf52LD/order-form-oswald-revolver.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/PJjQtMHr/oswald-revolver-sn-zpsthmb8ukv.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FR12yNkc/Revolver-Owned-By-Lee-Harvey-Oswald.jpg)
JohnM
The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
• Oswald confirmed to various Police Officers he was carrying a pistol
• McDonald confirms he took the pistol from Oswald.
• McDonald confirms he gave the pistol to Carroll.
• Carroll confirms he gave the pistol to Hill.
• Hill confirms he took the pistol from Carroll.
• Hill confirms that he kept the pistol on his person until he inscribed it with his name.
• The revolver in evidence has a paper trail leading directly to Oswald's PO Box.
Oh poor poor Johnny.... you clearly haven't understood anything.
The fact that Oswald confirmed that he was carrying a revolver (which he said he bought in Fort Worth) doesn't mean that the revolver Carroll ended up with is exactly that revolver.
McDonald did claim that he gave a revolver to Carroll, but the latter actually testified that he jerked a revolver from somebody's hand without being able to tell who that person was. Oops
Yes, Carroll give a revolver to Hill, as they got in the car but he only assumed it belonged to Oswald.
And Hill did indeed claim that he kept that revolver until he marked it at around 4:00 PM.
The problem here is that C.T. Walker, who was also in the car testified that he had the revolver when they arrived at City Hall and officer Bardin submitted the S & W revolver to the evidence room at 3:25 PM, a half jour before Hill alleged gave the revolver to Lt. Baker. Oops
And there goes the chain of custody!
Unless of course when somebody like you comes along and ignores the parts of the evidence he doesn't like so he can make up his own little fairytale narrative. :D
-
The logical fallacies are literally mind boggling.
Make you case and give me one example of a logical fallacy
I did. If you entertain the possibility that Oswald did not kill Tippit and that the investigators were attempting to frame him for this crime as you do, then that is impossible to square with the investigators suppressing an Oswald wallet found at the Tippit murder scene as you also suggest happened. The discovery of such a wallet at the murder scene is highly incriminating to its owner. Your fantasy involves a wallet being suppressed because there would then be two Oswald wallets in evidence. If the investigators have the ability to suppress one such wallet, then it's not going to be the one left at the crime scene because that links Oswald directly to the crime - either because he committed it or it was planted for that very purpose. Either way no one has any incentive to suppress that wallet. If they need to put something in it from Oswald's arrest wallet or switch the wallets, they just do so because they control the evidence but there would no logical reason abandon the critical fact that it was left at the crime scene. Your claims are not only baseless but contradictory in purpose with the investigators working against their own interest either in solving the crime or framing Oswald for that crime.
-
I did. If you entertain the possibility that Oswald did not kill Tippit and that the investigators were attempting to frame him for this crime as you do, then that is impossible to square with the investigators suppressing an Oswald wallet found at the Tippit murder scene as you also suggest happened. The discovery of such a wallet at the murder scene is highly incriminating to its owner. Your fantasy involves a wallet being suppressed because there would then be two Oswald wallets in evidence. If the investigators have the ability to suppress one such wallet, then it's not going to be the one left at the crime scene because that links Oswald directly to the crime - either because he committed it or it was planted for that very purpose. Either way no one has any incentive to suppress that wallet. If they need to put something in it from Oswald's arrest wallet or switch the wallets, they just do so because they control the evidence but there would no logical reason abandon the critical fact that it was left at the crime scene. Your claims are not only baseless but contradictory in purpose with the investigators working against their own interest either in solving the crime or framing Oswald for that crime.
If you entertain the possibility that Oswald did not kill Tippit and that the investigators were attempting to frame him for this crime as you do
No I don't. I'm just trying to resolve a massive discrepancy in the evidence, which is something the WC should have done but instead just ignored it.
You're just making stuff up in order to have something to attack and are failing miserably.
then that is impossible to square with the investigators suppressing an Oswald wallet found at the Tippit murder scene as you also suggest happened.
The only one who is constantly claiming that investigators suppressed a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene is you. You've been told this a number of times.
Your fantasy involves a wallet being suppressed because there would then be two Oswald wallets in evidence.
It's your fantasy, not mine and there are not two wallets in evidence. There couldn't be if one was suppressed. You are all over the place.
Your idiotic made up arguments go nowhere and only serve to obscure the fact that Bentley said he gave the wallet he took from Oswald to Lt Baker. We know from Hill this happened around 4:00 PM.
And T.C. Walker, who was present at the Tippit scene with Westbrook said he had a card with a picture of Oswald and the name Hidell on it. That card was found in a wallet that some unknown person gave to Guy Rose just after Oswald was brought into the City Hall and submitted to the evidence room at 3:25 PM
You have to be completely out of touch with reality to not understand that there were indeed two wallets of which only one was entered into evidence.
Try dealing with that for a moment instead of making up stuff and misrepresenting what I have said.
-
Like I said, Hill, Bentley, and Walker show up at the Homicide office with Oswald and the wallet in tow. Baker is in the Homicide office at that time. Bentley gives Baker the wallet, but leaves with Hill for the Personnel office. Walker stays behind in the room to guard Oswald for some amount of time before rejoining Hill and Bentley in the Personnel office.
Too bad that Guy Rose said that he arrived at City Hall just after Oswald had been brought in. At that time somebody gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to Oswald. When Rose examined the wallet he found the Hidell ID.
This all happened at least two hours before Bentley gave a wallet to Lt Baker. If anybody didn't read the testimony and reports carefully it is you.
MW: This all happened at least two hours before Bentley gave a wallet to Lt Baker.
Nobody actually said that.
-
MW: This all happened at least two hours before Bentley gave a wallet to Lt Baker.
Nobody actually said that.
Try reading the combined testimonies again. Perhaps you'll figure it out.
-
Try reading the combined testimonies again. Perhaps you'll figure it out.
I did. It wasn't there.
-
I did. It wasn't there.
It's not my problem that you can't figure it out. This is a pointless conversation.
I found out a long time ago that I can't fix stupid
-
It's not my problem that you can't figure it out. This is a pointless conversation.
I found out a long time ago that I can't fix stupid
We're getting near to the point in the conversation where the CT tells the LN to find the supporting evidence for the CT's assertion.
-
We're getting near to the point in the conversation where the CT tells the LN to find the supporting evidence for the CT's assertion.
No, we have already arrived at the point where a imaginary "CT" (in the mind of a fanatical zealot LN) has explained the evidence for two wallets and just about all LNs couldn't answer the simple questions asked, leaving us with Mitch who is always playing games and never ever presents any logical explanation or even a shred of evidence. In this case he hasn't even made a point beyond that he can't find figure it out.
-
It's not my problem that you can't figure it out. This is a pointless conversation.
I found out a long time ago that I can't fix stupid
Umm hmm. I thought so. Nothing.
-
No, we have already arrived at the point where a imaginary "CT" (in the mind of a fanatical zealot LN) has explained the evidence for two wallets and just about all LNs couldn't answer the simple questions asked, leaving us with Mitch who is always playing games and never ever presents any logical explanation or even a shred of evidence. In this case he hasn't even made a point beyond that he can't find figure it out.
The Weidmann method:
1.) Make unsupported assertion.
2.) Demand that the other guy find evidence for said unsupported assertion
3.) Whine that the other guy is "playing games"
:D
-
The Weidmann method:
1.) Make unsupported assertion.
2.) Demand that the other guy find evidence for said unsupported assertion
3.) Whine that the other guy is "playing games"
:D
And there we have it.... this is what Mitch's games are all about.
He can't tell me what is wrong with the evidence I have provided, and he hasn't got answers....
I've played this game before with him and it always plays out the same way.. That's why I said it's a pointless conversation.
-
And there we have it.... this is what Mitch's games are all about.
He can't tell me what is wrong with the evidence I have provided, and he hasn't got answers....
I've played this game before with him and it always plays out the same way.. That's why I said it's a pointless conversation.
The Weidmann method:
1.) Make unsupported assertion.
2.) Demand that the other guy find evidence for said unsupported assertion
3.) Whine that the other guy is "playing games"
4.) When the other guy points out the games you play, whine some more.
:D
-
The Weidmann method:
1.) Make unsupported assertion.
2.) Demand that the other guy find evidence for said unsupported assertion
3.) Whine that the other guy is "playing games"
4.) When the other guy points out the games you play, whine some more.
:D
And here we go, round and round again...
Still no explanation of what is wrong with the case I have presented. Only a waste of time...
-
And here we go, round and round again...
Still no explanation of what is wrong with the case I have presented. Only a waste of time...
You haven't actually made a case. That's my point. You've just made some unsupported assertions, then demanded that I investigate them for you.
-
You haven't actually made a case. That's my point. You've just made some unsupported assertions, then demanded that I investigate them for you.
Again the same BS I've become accustomed to from you.
I'll give this one more try; Bentley, Carroll, Hill and Walker brought Oswald to the homicide bureau at City Hall and left him there with some uniformed officers. They went to the personnel office where some officers initialed the S & W revolver and a gray jacket. According to Hill, in his WC testimony, this happened at around 4:00 PM but in his report to Chief Curry of 3 December 1963 he gave the time as 3:15 PM.
Paul Bentley, wrote in his report to Chief Curry of 2 December 1963: "On the way to City Hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name. Not a word about finding a Hidell ID! He also wrote: Sgt. Jerry Hill had the S&W 38 cal pistol with six (6) shells in his possession on the way to the City Hall. This pistol was initialed by me and turned over to Lt. Baker and Captain Fritz by Sgt. Hill. I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
The information of Hill and Bentley combined justifies IMO the conclusion that the revolver and Oswald's identification were turned over to Lt. Baker at some time after 3:15 PM which matches with 3:25 PM time on the receipt of the evidence room, where the wallet, the revolver and several personal items of Oswald were submitted by traffic officer Bardin.
If you wish to argue that Bentley turned in the wallet/identification to Lt Baker earlier, you will not find any evidence for that.
But even if Bentley did hand in the wallet/identification to Lt. Baker just after leaving Oswald with the uniformed officers at the Homicide Bureau it still does explain how C.T. Walker could claim that he had the Hidell identification and it most certainly doesn't explain how Detective Guy Rose was given a wallet in which he found the Hidell ID. Rose arrived at City Hall just after Oswald was brought in and when he got to the Homicide Bureau an unidentified person gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald.
All I said was;
I don't see how the wallet in both stories could be the same one. So, what's a possible explanation? If we disregard the obvious contradiction of the revolver's chain of custody, and only focus on the wallet; it needs to be considered that C.T. Walker was at the Tippit crime scene. The only way I can fit Bentley's wallet story and Walker's wallet story in one narrative is by concluding that Bentley did in fact take a wallet from Oswald, which did not contain the Hidell ID, and kept it until turning it over to Lt Baker at around 4:00 PM, and Walker had the wallet found at the Tippit scene which he brought into City Hall where it was given to Guy Rose and subsequently was submitted to the evidence bureau at 3:35 PM.
If anybody can come with with another plausible explanation to square the two stories, I would love to hear it!
And so far no LN has come up with an answer and all I have gotten from you is denial.
-
And so far no LN has come up with an answer and all I have gotten from you is denial.
No one has an obligation to disprove what you have never proven, only asserted.
-
No one has an obligation to disprove what you have never proven, only asserted.
Classic LN BS:
I asked a question and clowns like you can't come up with a plausible answer. If you could, you would have provided it, if only for the purpose to point out an error made by one of those evil CTs!
At the same time you and people like you make up all sorts of BS claims, based on no and/or misrepresented evidence, which you then expect to be disproven. And you don't even see understand the contradiction!
So, while it is true that nobody has an obligation to disprove anything (which also applies to your bogus claims), I'll nevertheless will consider the lack of an answer as an admission of your inability to provide a plausible explanation for the clear discrepancy in the factual evidence.
-
Again the same BS I've become accustomed to from you.
I'll give this one more try; Bentley, Carroll, Hill and Walker brought Oswald to the homicide bureau at City Hall and left him there with some uniformed officers. They went to the personnel office where some officers initialed the S & W revolver and a gray jacket. According to Hill, in his WC testimony, this happened at around 4:00 PM but in his report to Chief Curry of 3 December 1963 he gave the time as 3:15 PM.
Paul Bentley, wrote in his report to Chief Curry of 2 December 1963: "On the way to City Hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name. Not a word about finding a Hidell ID! He also wrote: Sgt. Jerry Hill had the S&W 38 cal pistol with six (6) shells in his possession on the way to the City Hall. This pistol was initialed by me and turned over to Lt. Baker and Captain Fritz by Sgt. Hill. I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
The information of Hill and Bentley combined justifies IMO the conclusion that the revolver and Oswald's identification were turned over to Lt. Baker at some time after 3:15 PM which matches with 3:25 PM time on the receipt of the evidence room, where the wallet, the revolver and several personal items of Oswald were submitted by traffic officer Bardin.
If you wish to argue that Bentley turned in the wallet/identification to Lt Baker earlier, you will not find any evidence for that.
But even if Bentley did hand in the wallet/identification to Lt. Baker just after leaving Oswald with the uniformed officers at the Homicide Bureau it still does explain how C.T. Walker could claim that he had the Hidell identification and it most certainly doesn't explain how Detective Guy Rose was given a wallet in which he found the Hidell ID. Rose arrived at City Hall just after Oswald was brought in and when he got to the Homicide Bureau an unidentified person gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald.
All I said was;
And so far no LN has come up with an answer and all I have gotten from you is denial.
So, finally.
Let's look at this statement from Bentley's report:
Sgt. Jerry Hill had the S&W 38 cal pistol with six (6) shells in his possession on the way to the City Hall. This pistol was initialed by me and turned over to Lt. Baker and Captain Fritz by Sgt. Hill. I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
There's nothing at all about anything happening at 3:35PM nor at 4:00PM.
Bentley says that he left the Homicide Bureau and went to Westbrook's office --that is, the Personnel division-- to write reports. Hill and Carrol also talk about this. The migration of the arresting party happened in the 2-o'clock hour, so the turnover of the wallet in the Homicide department had to have occurred long before you want to believe.
-
So, finally.
Let's look at this statement from Bentley's report:
Sgt. Jerry Hill had the S&W 38 cal pistol with six (6) shells in his possession on the way to the City Hall. This pistol was initialed by me and turned over to Lt. Baker and Captain Fritz by Sgt. Hill. I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
There's nothing at all about anything happening at 3:35PM nor at 4:00PM.
Bentley says that he left the Homicide Bureau and went to Westbrook's office --that is, the Personnel division-- to write reports. Hill and Carrol also talk about this. The migration of the arresting party happened in the 2-o'clock hour, so the turnover of the wallet in the Homicide department had to have occurred long before you want to believe.
There's nothing at all about anything happening at 3:35PM nor at 4:00PM.
That's exactly what I figured you would say. It isn't written verbatim in Bentley's statement, so let's just ignore the combined statements of Hill and Bentley and just claim nothing happened at 3:35 PM or later.
Bentley says that he left the Homicide Bureau and went to Westbrook's office --that is, the Personnel division-- to write reports. Hill and Carrol also talk about this. The migration of the arresting party happened in the 2-o'clock hour, so the turnover of the wallet in the Homicide department had to have occurred long before you want to believe.
So now you want to consider the combined statements of the officers? Not only is it dishonest, it's also a massive misrepresentation. And of course not to mention that there is no record of a wallet being handed over to Lt Baker at 2:00 PM.
All you are doing is presenting a self-serving conclusion based on hot air that doesn't even answer my two basic questions.
Bentley says that he left the Homicide Bureau and went to Westbrook's office --that is, the Personnel division-- to write reports.
No, he did not say that at all. He said (I'm paraphrasing) that he initialed the S & W revolver before it was turned over the Lt Baker and he did the same with Oswald's identification, before he went to Westbrook's office to write his report.
Gerald Hill tells us in his report this happend at approx 3:15 PM.
The sequence of events is a simple one; Carroll, Hill, Walker and Bentley bring Oswald to the Homicide bureau, where they leave him with uniformed officers. They then went to the personnel office (where a number of officers had gathered) where the revolver was initialed and handed over to Lt Baker along with the wallet. Even if this had only taken 10 minutes after leaving Oswald at the Homicide Bureau, you still have a wallet problem, because Guy Rose arrived at the Homicide Bureau just after Oswald had been brought in and when he got there he was given a wallet in which he found the Hidell ID.
So, how does a wallet being held either by Bentley or Baker, find it's way in less than a minute or two to Guy Rose and why did Walker have the Hidell ID?
-
There's nothing at all about anything happening at 3:35PM nor at 4:00PM.
That's exactly what I figured you would say. It isn't written verbatim in Bentley's statement, so let's just ignore the combined statements of Hill and Bentley and just claim nothing happened at 3:35 PM or later.
Bentley says that he left the Homicide Bureau and went to Westbrook's office --that is, the Personnel division-- to write reports. Hill and Carrol also talk about this. The migration of the arresting party happened in the 2-o'clock hour, so the turnover of the wallet in the Homicide department had to have occurred long before you want to believe.
So now you want to consider the combined statements of the officers? Not only is it dishonest, it's also a massive misrepresentation. And of course not to mention that there is no record of a wallet being handed over to Lt Baker at 2:00 PM.
All you are doing is presenting a self-serving conclusion based on hot air that doesn't even answer my two basic questions.
Bentley says that he left the Homicide Bureau and went to Westbrook's office --that is, the Personnel division-- to write reports.
No, he did not say that at all. He said (I'm paraphrasing) that he initialed the S & W revolver before it was turned over the Lt Baker and he did the same with Oswald's identification, before he went to Westbrook's office to write his report.
Gerald Hill tells us in his report this happend at approx 3:15 PM.
The sequence of events is a simple one; Carroll, Hill, Walker and Bentley bring Oswald to the Homicide bureau, where they leave him with uniformed officers. They then went to the personnel office (where a number of officers had gathered) where the revolver was initialed and handed over to Lt Baker along with the wallet. Even if this had only taken 10 minutes after leaving Oswald at the Homicide Bureau, you still have a wallet problem, because Guy Rose arrived at the Homicide Bureau just after Oswald had been brought in and when he got there he was given a wallet in which he found the Hidell ID.
So, how does a wallet being held either by Bentley or Baker, find it's way in less than a minute or two to Guy Rose and why did Walker have the Hidell ID?
MW: No, he did not say that at all. He said (I'm paraphrasing) that he initialed the S & W revolver before it was turned over the Lt Baker and he did the same with Oswald's identification, before he went to Westbrook's office to write his report.
Gerald Hill tells us in his report this happend at approx 3:15 PM.
This is what Hill had to say in his report to Curry about the handover of the pistol at 3:15 PM:
"I retained this gun in my posesssion until approximately 3:15 pm Friday, November 22, 1963, when in the presence of Officers Carroll and McDonald, I turned this weapon over to Detective T. L. Baker of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau.
"At the time the pistol was released to Detective Baker, McDonald, Carroll, and I had all marked it for identification purposes, and in the presence of McDonald and Carroll, I marked the side of the casing on all the shells, which were also turned over to Detective Baker at the same time"
Notice who isn't mentioned here? Yes, Bentley! ...And also Lyons, the other arresting officer who wound up being sent to the hospital for a ankle injury incurred during the arrest. Hill's report actually implies that Bentley and Lyons had already left for the hospital (presumably Parkland, though Baylor would have been closest) when Hill, et al, turned over the revolver to Baker at 3:15.
-
MW: No, he did not say that at all. He said (I'm paraphrasing) that he initialed the S & W revolver before it was turned over the Lt Baker and he did the same with Oswald's identification, before he went to Westbrook's office to write his report.
Gerald Hill tells us in his report this happend at approx 3:15 PM.
This is what Hill had to say in his report to Curry about the handover of the pistol at 3:15 PM:
"I retained this gun in my posesssion until approximately 3:15 pm Friday, November 22, 1963, when in the presence of Officers Carroll and McDonald, I turned this weapon over to Detective T. L. Baker of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau.
"At the time the pistol was released to Detective Baker, McDonald, Carroll, and I had all marked it for identification purposes, and in the presence of McDonald and Carroll, I marked the side of the casing on all the shells, which were also turned over to Detective Baker at the same time"
Notice who isn't mentioned here? Yes, Bentley! ...And also Lyons, the other arresting officer who wound up being sent to the hospital for a ankle injury incurred during the arrest. Hill's report actually implies that Bentley and Lyons had already left for the hospital (presumably Parkland, though Baylor would have been closest) when Hill, et al, turned over the revolver to Baker at 3:15.
Notice who isn't mentioned here? Yes, Bentley!
True, but Bentley said it himself in his report to Chief Curry.
Hill's report actually implies that Bentley and Lyons had already left for the hospital
No, Hill's report doesn't imply anything of the kind. When you feel the need to make stuff up, you've already lost the argument!
This is what happens when you cherry pick the evidence you like and ignore the rest.
Btw, you still haven't provided an answer about Guy Rose and C.T. Walker.... Why is that? :D
-
Notice who isn't mentioned here? Yes, Bentley!
True, but Bentley said it himself in his report to Chief Curry.
Hill's report actually implies that Bentley and Lyons had already left for the hospital
No, Hill's report doesn't imply anything of the kind. When you feel the need to make stuff up, you've already lost the argument!
This is what happens when you cherry pick the evidence you like and ignore the rest.
Btw, you still haven't provided an answer about Guy Rose and C.T. Walker.... Why is that? :D
MW: True, but Bentley said it himself in his report to Chief Curry.
Did Bentley say that he engraved his initials on the gun at the same time as Hill, Carroll, Walker, and McDonald? No. You're assuming that all of the officers itnitalled the weapon at the same time, but there's nothing in the record that requires, implies, or suggests that this is the case.
MW: No, Hill's report doesn't imply anything of the kind. When you feel the need to make stuff up, you've already lost the argument!
Oh, but it does. You just won't let the sunshine into your mind. Carrol testified to the same thing:
Mr. BALL: And tell me briefly who was present when you saw McDonald make the mark on the gun?
Mr. CARROLL: Well, let's see - there was myself, Mack, I think Ray Hawkins was there, and I believe Hutson was there, and I believe Bentley and Lyons had already gone out to have their feet checked
MW: Btw, you still haven't provided an answer about Guy Rose and C.T. Walker.... Why is that?
Because you kept emphasizing Bentley, so that's what I responded to. Your Bentley angle has crashed and burned, so now you want to change the subject.
-
MW: True, but Bentley said it himself in his report to Chief Curry.
Did Bentley say that he engraved his initials on the gun at the same time as Hill, Carroll, Walker, and McDonald? No. You're assuming that all of the officers itnitalled the weapon at the same time, but there's nothing in the record that requires, implies, or suggests that this is the case.
MW: No, Hill's report doesn't imply anything of the kind. When you feel the need to make stuff up, you've already lost the argument!
Oh, but it does. You just won't let the sunshine into your mind. Carrol testified to the same thing:
Mr. BALL: And tell me briefly who was present when you saw McDonald make the mark on the gun?
Mr. CARROLL: Well, let's see - there was myself, Mack, I think Ray Hawkins was there, and I believe Hutson was there, and I believe Bentley and Lyons had already gone out to have their feet checked
MW: Btw, you still haven't provided an answer about Guy Rose and C.T. Walker.... Why is that?
Because you kept emphasizing Bentley, so that's what I responded to. Your Bentley angle has crashed and burned, so now you want to change the subject.
Did Bentley say that he engraved his initials on the gun at the same time as Hill, Carroll, Walker, and McDonald? No. You're assuming that all of the officers itnitalled the weapon at the same time, but there's nothing in the record that requires, implies, or suggests that this is the case.
Moving the goalpost again? This is exactly the kind of BS that I have seen coming from you in previous conversations. Hill said he had the revolver all the time, until he handed it over to Lt Baker. Your suggestion that Bentley initialed the revolver before everybody else did is an assumption for which there is no evidence. It also doesn't make any sense!
Oh, but it does. You just won't let the sunshine into your mind. Carrol testified to the same thing:
First you claim that Hill's testimony implied it (which it didn't) and now you come up with Carroll who only believes that Bentley and Lyons had already left and doesn't even recall if Westbrook was there.
Wow, that's some solid "evidence" :D
The one good thing coming out of this is the fact that there also isn't a solid chain of custody for the wallet, just like there isn't one for the revolver, the gray jacket and CE 399.
Because you kept emphasizing Bentley, so that's what I responded to. Your Bentley angle has crashed and burned, so now you want to change the subject.
Nope.. the question about Rose and Walker was already asked before you joined the conversation. The fact that you don't understand ignored that shows exactly your strategy of talking about anything except the matter I wanted to discuss.
And my Bentley angle hasn't crashed and burned. You haven't even come close to making a coherent argument. All you are doing is cherry picking evidence and throwing it at the wall to see what sticks.
As for the original question, which directly relates to the existence of two wallets, you are still completely lost in the dark.
I said it before and I'll repeat it now; talking to you is a waste of time!
-
Did Bentley say that he engraved his initials on the gun at the same time as Hill, Carroll, Walker, and McDonald? No. You're assuming that all of the officers itnitalled the weapon at the same time, but there's nothing in the record that requires, implies, or suggests that this is the case.
Moving the goalpost again? This is exactly the kind of BS that I have seen coming from you in previous conversations. Hill said he had the revolver all the time, until he handed it over to Lt Baker. Your suggestion that Bentley initialed the revolver before everybody else did is an assumption for which there is no evidence. It also doesn't make any sense!
Oh, but it does. You just won't let the sunshine into your mind. Carrol testified to the same thing:
First you claim that Hill's testimony implied it (which it didn't) and now you come up with Carroll who only believes that Bentley and Lyons had already left and doesn't even recall if Westbrook was there.
Wow, that's some solid "evidence" :D
The one good thing coming out of this is the fact that there also isn't a solid chain of custody for the wallet, just like there isn't one for the revolver, the gray jacket and CE 399.
Because you kept emphasizing Bentley, so that's what I responded to. Your Bentley angle has crashed and burned, so now you want to change the subject.
Nope.. the question about Rose and Walker was already asked before you joined the conversation. The fact that you don't understand ignored that shows exactly your strategy of talking about anything except the matter I wanted to discuss.
And my Bentley angle hasn't crashed and burned. You haven't even come close to making a coherent argument. All you are doing is cherry picking evidence and throwing it at the wall to see what sticks.
As for the original question, which directly relates to the existence of two wallets, you are still completely lost in the dark.
I said it before and I'll repeat it now; talking to you is a waste of time!
MW: Hill said he had the revolver all the time, until he handed it over to Lt Baker.
He used the word "possession" which is a little more permissive than you'd like to think. Westbrook said that it was lying on the desk in the Personnel squad room when he walked in. That would still fit "possession," as the squad room wasn't that big, while not strictly being on Hill's person. This leaves it open to Bentley putting his JH on it.
MW: Your suggestion that Bentley initialed the revolver before everybody else did is an assumption for which there is no evidence.
There is also no evidence against this happening.
MW: It also doesn't make any sense!
Hill tried to turn over the revolver to Baker when Oswald was deposited with the Homicide crew. If Bentley left early in the Personnel office report party, which everyone involved said happened, then Bentley wasn't around at 3:15 when Baker showed up to collect the revolver. It's possible that Bentley might have autographed the pistol while they were still in the homicide office thinking it was about the be transferred and didn't know when it wound up not being left in the Homicide office. Alternately, Bentley might have initialed the gun just before he left the Personnel office to go to the hospital; and ?Hill didn't mention this in his report because Bentley wasn't there at the actual time of transfer.
Also, you don't know what "moving the goalposts" means.
MW: First you claim that Hill's testimony implied it (which it didn't) and now you come up with Carroll who only believes that Bentley and Lyons had already left and doesn't even recall if Westbrook was there. Wow, that's some solid "evidence" :D
That's a lot more more evidence than you've provided of Bentley being present at the 3:15 handover of the revolver.
As for the wallet, Bentley said in his report that it was turned over before the arresting party left for the Personnel office. He said the same thing in the videotaped interviews that he made years later. That is, he put the wallet handover at the same time as Baker, Rose, et al. That was well before 3:15, and well before Baker came to the Personnel office to retrieve the revolver.
-
Again... After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports.
Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).
Think about it.
-
Again... After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports.
Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).
Think about it.
After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports
True, that's also where they marked pieces of evidence, regardless if they ever were in the chain of custody or not.
Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).
Really?
The sequence of events disagrees. The officers who drove in the car with Oswald, left him in the homicide bureau, with some uniformed officers.
Only minutes after Oswald had been brought in, Guy Rose started working and the first thing he did was talk to Oswald. When he walked into the room, somebody gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.
Now, if Oswald's wallet was in Westbrook's office with a number of officers, as you claim, how could Guy Rose be given that same wallet?
Perhaps, if somebody needs to think about it, it's you.
-
Again... After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports.
Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).
Think about it.
If you read what they all said and wrote, they showed up in the basement of the Municipal building, and brought Oswald up the back elevator to the DPD offices on the third floor. The party first went to the Homicide office, where they deposited Oswald and the wallet with Baker and other members of Fritz team. Hill and Baker conversed about possession of the revolver, the result being that Hill kept it. Then the arresting party proceeded to the squad room in the Personnel office. Bentley and Lyons went to the hospital to have their injuries examined, while the rest of the party set to writing reports. At some point after Bentley and Lyons left, Westbrook entered the squad room, saw the revolver lying on a desk, and sent for Lt Baker to come get it. At this point, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald put their initials on the weapon and turn it over.
-
After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports
True, that's also where they marked pieces of evidence, regardless if they ever were in the chain of custody or not.
Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).
Really?
The sequence of events disagrees. The officers who drove in the car with Oswald, left him in the homicide bureau, with some uniformed officers.
Only minutes after Oswald had been brought in, Guy Rose started working and the first thing he did was talk to Oswald. When he walked into the room, somebody gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.
Now, if Oswald's wallet was in Westbrook's office with a number of officers, as you claim, how could Guy Rose be given that same wallet?
Perhaps, if somebody needs to think about it, it's you.
Bingo!
Martin's four year old post,
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3504.msg131753.html#msg131753
....
That's just Guy Rose's recollection. And it simply doesn't make sense, because Bentley had already identified him in the car as Oswald and he knew they had his wallet. So, why in the world would Oswald say his name was Hidell.
.....
And....
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/rose_g.htm
....
Mr. ROSE. I went on duty shortly after the assassination. At the time of the assassination I was not on duty.
Mr. BALL. Did somebody call you and ask you to come on duty?
Mr. ROSE. No; I came in just as soon as I heard of the shooting--I came on to work.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go to work?
Mr. ROSE. I reported to the homicide office. It's room 317 at the city hall.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go then?
Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?
Mr. BALL. What did you say to him or did he say to you?
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".
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.
Mr. BALL. Were you sitting down?
Mr. ROSE. No; I was standing in the interrogation room.
Mr. BALL. Where was he--was he standing too?
Mr. ROSE. No; he was sitting in the chair.
Mr. BALL. Was he handcuffed?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he was.
Mr. BALL. Were the handcuffs behind or in front of him?
Mr. ROSE. I believe they were behind him--I don't remember for sure.
Mr. BALL. Who else was present at that time?
Mr. ROSE. Detective Stovall, he was my partner, and I believe both uniformed men were present--two of the uniformed men were present.
Mr. BALL. The ones who brought him in?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Do you know their names?
Mr. ROSE. I don't remember--I did see McDonald and I did talk to him, but I don't remember whether he was the one that was standing right there at the time or not.
Mr. BALL. After you saw the cards, you asked him which one was his true name?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. ROSE. He said, "You find out."[/quote
VS Bentley's statement,
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=252
-
If you read what they all said and wrote, they showed up in the basement of the Municipal building, and brought Oswald up the back elevator to the DPD offices on the third floor. The party first went to the Homicide office, where they deposited Oswald and the wallet with Baker and other members of Fritz team. Hill and Baker conversed about possession of the revolver, the result being that Hill kept it. Then the arresting party proceeded to the squad room in the Personnel office. Bentley and Lyons went to the hospital to have their injuries examined, while the rest of the party set to writing reports. At some point after Bentley and Lyons left, Westbrook entered the squad room, saw the revolver lying on a desk, and sent for Lt Baker to come get it. At this point, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald put their initials on the weapon and turn it over.
Nice story. Just too bad it has very little to do with what actually happened.
they showed up in the basement of the Municipal building, and brought Oswald up the back elevator to the DPD offices on the third floor. The party first went to the Homicide office, where they deposited Oswald
True
and the wallet with Baker and other members of Fritz team
This is where you go off the rails.
In his report to Chief Curry, Gerald Hill wrote;
I retained this gun in my posesssion until approximately 3:15 pm Friday, November 22, 1963, when in the presence of Officers Carroll and McDonald, I turned this weapon over to Detective T. L. Baker of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau. At the time the pistol was released to Detective Baker, McDonald, Carroll, and I had all marked it for identification purposes, and in the presence of McDonald and Carroll, I marked the side of the casing on all the shells, which were also turned over to Detective Baker at the same time
In his report Paul Bentley wrote;
Sgt. Jerry Hill had the S&W 38 cal. Pistol with six (6) shells in his possession on the way tot he City Hall. This pistol was initialed by me and turned over to Lt. Baker and Captain Fritz by Sgt. Hill. I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker.
Bentley does not say he turned over the wallet to Baker before he initialed the pistol. Instead he clearly links the handing over of the wallet to the pistol being turned over, which was before he went to Westbrook's office to make a report. Westbrook told the WC that he saw the gun when it was brought in to the personnel office and then brought to his office.
Mr. BALL. Were you in the personnel office at a time that a gun was brought in?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir; it was brought to my office when it shouldn't have been.
Mr. BALL. But it was brought to your office?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was marked by some officer?
Mr. WESTBROOK. It was marked by Officer Jerry Hill and a couple or three more, and when they come in with the gun, I just went on down and told Captain Fritz that the gun was in my office and he sent a man up after it. I didn't take it down.
So either, the revolver was marked by several officers at the personnel office or in Westbrook's office. In either case, the revolver wasn't turned over to Baker as soon as the officers arrived at City Hall with Oswald, which means that the wallet also wasn't handed in to Baker straight away.
Hill and Baker conversed about possession of the revolver, the result being that Hill kept it. Then the arresting party proceeded to the squad room in the Personnel office.
I don't know where you get from that Hill and Baker conversed about possession of the revolver. I can't find that being mentioned anywhere. Did you make it up?
Bentley and Lyons went to the hospital to have their injuries examined, while the rest of the party set to writing reports.
Incorrect. According to Bentley's report;
I then went to Captain Westbrook’s Office to make a report of this arrest.
I then was told by Inspector Kockos to go to Baylor Hospital to receive treatment for the injured foot I received in making the arrest.
he didn't go to the hospital until after making a report of this arrest!
At some point after Bentley and Lyons left, Westbrook entered the squad room, saw the revolver lying on a desk, and sent for Lt Baker to come get it. At this point, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald put their initials on the weapon and turn it over.
Bentley stated he initialed the revolver. Hill claimed he had possession of the revolver all the time. Leaving it on a table in Westbrook's office for anybody to have access to it (like Bentley marking the revolver before everybody else, as you suggest) means that Hill didn't have possession of the revolver all the time. There goes the chain of custody!
We have already seen from Bentley's statement that he (and Lyons) left for the hospital after making his report. By that time the revolver and the wallet had already been turned over to Baker. Hill stated that happened at 3:15 PM, which fits perfectly with the submission of the revolver to the evidence room a few minutes later.
Your little fairytale just doesn't add up. It also doesn't answer how Guy Rose could have been given a wallet, just after Oswald was brought in, when Bentley says he still had the wallet he took from Oswald when he was in Westbrook's office or the personnel room.
-
After Oswald was brought in from the theater, everyone gathered inside the office of Capt. Westbrook. This office is where the officers filled out their arrest reports
True, that's also where they marked pieces of evidence, regardless if they ever were in the chain of custody or not.
Inside this office was Westbrook, Barrett and Oswald's wallet (with Oswald and Hidell identifications inside and taken from him by Bentley during the car ride from the theater to headquarters).
Really?
The sequence of events disagrees. The officers who drove in the car with Oswald, left him in the homicide bureau, with some uniformed officers.
Only minutes after Oswald had been brought in, Guy Rose started working and the first thing he did was talk to Oswald. When he walked into the room, somebody gave him a wallet and told him it belonged to the suspect. That's the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.
Now, if Oswald's wallet was in Westbrook's office with a number of officers, as you claim, how could Guy Rose be given that same wallet?
Perhaps, if somebody needs to think about it, it's you.
If you read what they all said and wrote, they showed up in the basement of the Municipal building, and brought Oswald up the back elevator to the DPD offices on the third floor. The party first went to the Homicide office, where they deposited Oswald and the wallet with Baker and other members of Fritz team. Hill and Baker conversed about possession of the revolver, the result being that Hill kept it. Then the arresting party proceeded to the squad room in the Personnel office. Bentley and Lyons went to the hospital to have their injuries examined, while the rest of the party set to writing reports. At some point after Bentley and Lyons left, Westbrook entered the squad room, saw the revolver lying on a desk, and sent for Lt Baker to come get it. At this point, Hill, Carroll, and McDonald put their initials on the weapon and turn it over.
Yes. The wallet itself remained in Fritz' office the entire time. I should've said Westbrook, Barrett and the wallet were all three back at headquarters at the same time, as opposed to Westbrook's office at the same time.
-
Yes. The wallet itself remained in Fritz' office the entire time. I should've said Westbrook, Barrett and the wallet were all three back at headquarters at the same time, as opposed to Westbrook's office at the same time.
You still haven't thought about it.
Bentley said (I'm paraphrasing) in his report of 3 December 1963 that he gave the wallet to Baker at the same time as Hill turned over the initialed revolver to Baker and Fritz. According to Hill, in his report, this happened at around 3:15 PM, which is only minutes before the items were submitted to the evidence room.
Guy Rose was the first officer to talk to Oswald, just minutes after he was brought into the homicide office. An unidentified person had given Rose a wallet which he claimed belonged to the suspect. This was the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.
So, if the wallet was in Fritz' office the entire time since Bentley and Hill brought it in, how in the world is it possible that Guy Rose was given a wallet just minutes after Oswald was brought into the homicide bureau?
-
You still haven't thought about it.
Bentley said (I'm paraphrasing) in his report of 3 December 1963 that he gave the wallet to Baker at the same time as Hill turned over the initialed revolver to Baker and Fritz. According to Hill, in his report, this happened at around 3:15 PM, which is only minutes before the items were submitted to the evidence room.
Guy Rose was the first officer to talk to Oswald, just minutes after he was brought into the homicide office. An unidentified person had given Rose a wallet which he claimed belonged to the suspect. This was the wallet in which Rose found the Hidell ID.
So, if the wallet was in Fritz' office the entire time since Bentley and Hill brought it in, how in the world is it possible that Guy Rose was given a wallet just minutes after Oswald was brought into the homicide bureau?
Let's just bump this one for a moment. Perhaps there is somebody who can actually answer this question......Or am I now overestimating the LN's ability to argue a case and answer a simple question?
-
Let's just bump this one for a moment. Perhaps there is somebody who can actually answer this question......Or am I now overestimating the LN's ability to argue a case and answer a simple question?
Still not a credible explanation by a LN. Why is that?
-
This whole discussion is a perfect example of CTs trying to find significance in the most insignificant things. They have no real evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the crime so they think if they can come up with some unexplained event, that proves conspiracy. It is a completely illogical approach, but this is all the CTs have after 62 years.
-
This whole discussion is a perfect example of CTs trying to find significance in the most insignificant things. They have no real evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the crime so they think if they can come up with some unexplained event, that proves conspiracy. It is a completely illogical approach, but this is all the CTs have after 62 years.
Contradictions in the evidence are not insignificant, but I fully understand why you would like them to be.
Perhaps you should stop complaining about "CTs" and (for once) try to answer a question. Your constant lack of answers shows just how weak your superficial case really is.
-
This whole discussion is a perfect example of CTs trying to find significance in the most insignificant things. They have no real evidence that anybody except Oswald took part in the crime so they think if they can come up with some unexplained event, that proves conspiracy. It is a completely illogical approach, but this is all the CTs have after 62 years.
such is the empty BS: you pass out here every day.
-
such is the empty BS: you pass out here every day.
I figured out the JFKA a long time ago. The CTs are still grasping at straws.
The AI definition of the phrase "grasping at straws" perfectly defines the CT efforts over the past six decades:
The phrase "grasping at straws" means to make a desperate attempt to save oneself or succeed in a situation where the chances are very slim, often by resorting to unlikely or flimsy solutions
It can also refer to trying desperately to support an argument with irrelevant points
Essentially, it describes a futile effort to find a solution when all options seem ineffective
-
I figured out the JFKA a long time ago. The CTs are still grasping at straws.
The AI definition of the phrase "grasping at straws" perfectly defines the CT efforts over the past six decades:
The phrase "grasping at straws" means to make a desperate attempt to save oneself or succeed in a situation where the chances are very slim, often by resorting to unlikely or flimsy solutions
It can also refer to trying desperately to support an argument with irrelevant points
Essentially, it describes a futile effort to find a solution when all options seem ineffective
...and the dolling out your BS is pretty self-explanatory in itself. No A-I is needed.
meanwhile....Michael T Griffith fills this forum with legitimate questions and doubts about the case.
His postings are backed up by solid documents, statements, and testimony. He continues posting in the face of your blatant insults.
His work will remain here as a testament to his dedication to the truth. John Corbett; not so much
Here are just a few of your "greatest hits" in reply;
Total BS.
Because of a confused witness.
No, the error is in your FUBAR figuring. As long as you have been analyzing the evidence in this case, it's amazing how bad you are at it.
Oh, goody for you. You caught one of my typos. I bet that made your day.
I think you had already posted plenty of nonsense. You didn't need to add on.
-
I figured out the JFKA a long time ago. The CTs are still grasping at straws.
The AI definition of the phrase "grasping at straws" perfectly defines the CT efforts over the past six decades:
The phrase "grasping at straws" means to make a desperate attempt to save oneself or succeed in a situation where the chances are very slim, often by resorting to unlikely or flimsy solutions
It can also refer to trying desperately to support an argument with irrelevant points
Essentially, it describes a futile effort to find a solution when all options seem ineffective
I figured out the JFKA a long time ago.
No you didn't, but you are simply too superficial to ever figure that out.
You can't even provide a plausible answer for a question that is 100% based on the available evidence.
-
...and the dolling out your BS is pretty self-explanatory in itself. No A-I is needed.
meanwhile....Michael T Griffith fills this forum with legitimate questions and doubts about the case.
His postings are backed up by solid documents, statements, and testimony. He continues posting in the face of your blatant insults.
His work will remain here as a testament to his dedication to the truth. John Corbett; not so much
Here are just a few of your "greatest hits" in reply;
I've been reading MTG's crap for 35 years and the word "legitimate" never crossed my mind. He keeps recycling the same old debunked BS he was trying to sell way back in the early 1990s. He's still trying to polish the same old I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy. His work never has and never will amount to a hill of beans. It will be forgotten soon after he goes belly up. The WC will remain the definitive account of the JFKA. It has stood the test of time and will continue to do so even as misinformed people continue to reject it.
Just what has the CT community done collectively over the past six decades. Has it produced any credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald took part in the assassination. A big fat NO. Some have pointed the finger of suspicion at various individuals or groups but have never been able to back it up with actual evidence. All they can do is invent lame excuses for rejecting the findings of the WC. Those efforts have been about as effective as shooting spit wads at tanks. History has recorded that Oswald was the assassin and will continue to do so long after any of us have passed on. Nothing has changed and nothing ever will. It has been 62 years of futility and still counting.
-
I've been reading MTG's crap for 35 years and the word "legitimate" never crossed my mind. He keeps recycling the same old debunked BS he was trying to sell way back in the early 1990s. He's still trying to polish the same old I could crush a Grape ooooh yummy yummy. His work never has and never will amount to a hill of beans. It will be forgotten soon after he goes belly up. The WC will remain the definitive account of the JFKA. It has stood the test of time and will continue to do so even as misinformed people continue to reject it.
Just what has the CT community done collectively over the past six decades. Has it produced any credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald took part in the assassination. A big fat NO. Some have pointed the finger of suspicion at various individuals or groups but have never been able to back it up with actual evidence. All they can do is invent lame excuses for rejecting the findings of the WC. Those efforts have been about as effective as shooting spit wads at tanks. History has recorded that Oswald was the assassin and will continue to do so long after any of us have passed on. Nothing has changed and nothing ever will. It has been 62 years of futility and still counting.
History has recorded that some people believe Oswald was the assassin without being able to provide a shred of persuasive evidence for it
There, I fixed it for you.
Now, mr. know-it-all, why don't simply try to answer the question about the wallet(s)? Could it be you are clueless?
-
History has recorded that some people believe Oswald was the assassin without being able to provide a shred of persuasive evidence for it
Completely unnecessary. The WC provided all the evidence necessary to convince any person with common sense Oswald was the assassin.
PS. I don't give a Helicopter :) about the wallets. It's just another example of a CT trying to make the case for conspiracy simply by raising a question or pointing to an anomaly. If you want to make the case for conspiracy, you have to provide actual evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. That means finding answers to the question raised and explaining how that answer proves conspiracy. Going around asking, "What about this? What about that?", doesn't cut it.
-
Completely unnecessary. The WC provided all the evidence necessary to convince any person with common sense Oswald was the assassin.
PS. I don't give a Helicopter :) about the wallets. It's just another example of a CT trying to make the case for conspiracy simply by raising a question or pointing to an anomaly. If you want to make the case for conspiracy, you have to provide actual evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. That means finding answers to the question raised and explaining how that answer proves conspiracy. Going around asking, "What about this? What about that?", doesn't cut it.
Completely unnecessary. The WC provided all the evidence necessary to convince any person with common sense Oswald was the assassin.
In your humble opinion, of course, right?
PS. I don't give a Helicopter :) about the wallets.
Yes, we already knew. You only care about "evidence" that points to a predetermined conclusion.
But thank you for confirming that there was indeed more than one wallet.
Going around asking, "What about this? What about that?", doesn't cut it.
Of course it does. It shows clearly just how superficial and shallow your flawed opinions are. You can't even answer a simple question! :D
You are not fooling anybody, except perhaps yourself. But that's just my humble opinion.
-
Completely unnecessary. The WC provided all the evidence necessary to convince any person with common sense Oswald was the assassin.
In your humble opinion, of course, right?
PS. I don't give a Helicopter :) about the wallets.
Yes, we already knew. You only care about "evidence" that points to a predetermined conclusion.
But thank you for confirming that there was indeed more than one wallet.
Going around asking, "What about this? What about that?", doesn't cut it.
Of course it does. It shows clearly just how superficial and shallow your flawed opinions are. You can't even answer a simple question! :D
You are not fooling anybody, except perhaps yourself. But that's just my humble opinion.
Troll
-
Troll
The classic response of a LN fanatical zealot who hasn't got answers. Pathetic!
-
Troll
:D
-
Our LN friends have had some time to think about this. Perhaps somebody has an answer by now. Let's find out, shall we?
-
Our LN friends have had some time to think about this. Perhaps somebody has an answer by now. Let's find out, shall we?
The troll and his sock puppet are back looking for attention.
-
The troll and his sock puppet are back looking for attention.
You really don't have a life, do you now?
-
It should be noted that in Officer Paul Bentley's 12/3/63 DPD memorandum, he said nothing -- not one word -- about finding a Hidell ID card on Oswald when he rode with Oswald to the police station. Said Bentley,
On the way to the City Hall, I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name.
Notice that not only did Bentley say nothing about finding a Hidell ID card but that he also said nothing about contacting the police dispatcher regarding the name Hidell, contrary to his later story.
It is also worth mentioning that when George O'Toole did a recorded interview with Bentley and checked Bentley's statements with the PSE (aka VSA) polygraph, the PSE showed hard stress when Bentley claimed that he found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet and that he contacted the dispatcher about the name Hidell.
I think the story that the police found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet on the way to the police station was a falsehood that was invented to help explain away the finding of an Oswald wallet with a Hidell ID card in it at the Tippit scene.
-
It should be noted that in Officer Paul Bentley's 12/3/63 DPD memorandum, he said nothing -- not one word -- about finding a Hidell ID card on Oswald when he rode with Oswald to the police station. Said Bentley,
On the way to the City Hall, I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name.
Notice that not only did Bentley say nothing about finding a Hidell ID card but that he also said nothing about contacting the police dispatcher regarding the name Hidell, contrary to his later story.
It is also worth mentioning that when George O'Toole did a recorded interview with Bentley and checked Bentley's statements with the PSE (aka VSA) polygraph, the PSE showed hard stress when Bentley claimed that he found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet and that he contacted the dispatcher about the name Hidell.
I think the story that the police found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet on the way to the police station was a falsehood that was invented to help explain away the finding of an Oswald wallet with a Hidell ID card in it at the Tippit scene.
I think you are continuing to invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss any and all evidence that Oswald was a double murderer.
All the credible evidence points to Oswald and Oswald alone.
You have never presented credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in either murder.
No one from the armies of CTs over the past six decades has presented any such evidence. Almost all of the efforts by the CT community has been to try to rebut the findings of the WC, not present any evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. Their case is a litany of excuses not to accept the overwhelming amount of evidence that Oswald was the assassin. None of these excuses has any validity.
-
It should be noted that in Officer Paul Bentley's 12/3/63 DPD memorandum, he said nothing -- not one word -- about finding a Hidell ID card on Oswald when he rode with Oswald to the police station. Said Bentley,
On the way to the City Hall, I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name.
Notice that not only did Bentley say nothing about finding a Hidell ID card but that he also said nothing about contacting the police dispatcher regarding the name Hidell, contrary to his later story.
It is also worth mentioning that when George O'Toole did a recorded interview with Bentley and checked Bentley's statements with the PSE (aka VSA) polygraph, the PSE showed hard stress when Bentley claimed that he found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet and that he contacted the dispatcher about the name Hidell.
I think the story that the police found a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet on the way to the police station was a falsehood that was invented to help explain away the finding of an Oswald wallet with a Hidell ID card in it at the Tippit scene.
I actually did not know that Bentley had claimed that he found a Hidell ID card. I don't think he did, because if he had done, he would have encountered two different ID's in a wallet without doing anything with that information. The police radio log also does not show any call to the dispatcher about the Hidell name.
-
I think you are continuing to invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss any and all evidence that Oswald was a double murderer.
All the credible evidence points to Oswald and Oswald alone.
You have never presented credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald was involved in either murder.
No one from the armies of CTs over the past six decades has presented any such evidence. Almost all of the efforts by the CT community has been to try to rebut the findings of the WC, not present any evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the crime. Their case is a litany of excuses not to accept the overwhelming amount of evidence that Oswald was the assassin. None of these excuses has any validity.
And this is how a fanatical zealot desperately tries to avoid answering the actual question about the wallet brought in by Bentley being in Westbrook's office while at the same time Guy Rose was given a wallet, containing the Hidell ID, just before he became the first officer to talk to Oswald after his arrival at the police station.
-
And this is how a fanatical zealot desperately tries to avoid answering the actual question about the wallet brought in by Bentley being in Westbrook's office while at the same time Guy Rose was given a wallet, containing the Hidell ID, just before he became the first officer to talk to Oswald after his arrival at the police station.
troll
-
troll
Says the guy who can't answer a simple question if it saved his life..... Hilarious!