JFK Assassination Forum

LP--

There is no general, or even sparse, dislike of Jews or Israelis in Thailand, where I have lived for 14 years. There are Jewish temples in Bangkok entirely unmolested by Thai nationals.

Many Thai nationals work on Israeli farms (sadly, 34 Thai nationals were massacred on Oct. 7) and in general they appreciate the money and results. Some end up marrying Israelis.

Just as sadly, there are Muslim-Buddhist hostilities due to Islamist separatist-terrorists in Thailand's south.

The Government of Canada advises travelers to exercise a high degree of caution in Thailand, and specifically warns against all travel to the southernmost provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani, Yala, and Songkhla due to unpredictable security situations and ongoing separatist insurgent violence. The Canadians are too PC to say "Muslims."

Here is brief description of the situation in Thailand's south:

While earlier attacks were typified by drive-by shootings in which patrolling policemen were shot by gunmen on passing motorcycles, after 2001 they have escalated to well-coordinated attacks on police establishments, with police stations and outposts ambushed by well-armed groups subsequently fleeing with stolen arms and ammunition. Other tactics used to gain publicity from shock and horror are slashing to death Buddhist monks, bombing temples, beheadings, intimidating pork vendors and their customers, as well as arson attacks on schools, killing the teachers —mostly female— and burning their bodies.[63] In rare cases, Pattani guerrilla groups had also threatened Thai Christians.[64] --Wikipedia

---30---

Muslim terrorist attacks in Thailand are primarily driven by a localized, ethnonationalist and separatist insurgency in the country's southernmost region. Concentrated in the Deep South provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, and parts of Songkhla, the conflict has resulted in over 7,000 casualties since it reignited in 2004.---Asia Foundation

---30---

Thailand is a nation of 60 million. The 7,000 casualties would be about equal to 40,000 casualties from terror attacks in the US.  Yes, Thais have bigger things to worry about than a few misbehaving Israeli tourists.

Even so, despite decades of Muslim terror, most Thais seem to regard Muslims evenly anywhere outside of the south, and I have never seen an incident of anti-Muslim behavior.

Israelis are frequent visitors to Thailand, and are regarded little differently from other European or Middle East visitors.

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).   

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.



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.

No.  Tippit was not declared DOA at 1:15.
He was declared DOA at Methodist Hispital.
The document also states that the time of death was 1:15.
You're mistakenly mixing the two together.

 

The areas on Rose's document where the DOA is written and the actual time of death are in two completely unconnected different sections.
The document does say that Tippit arrived DOA and then the certificate also specifically says the actual time of death was 1:15.
For instance, if someone dies overnight and arrives at the hospital/morgue Dead On Arrival in the morning at 9AM, the time of death obviously isn't 9AM but the Doctor will base the actual time of death on a number of factors, of when he estimates that the actual time of death actually happened.





JohnM

The problem is Zapruder never mentions hearing any sound for a first shot, anything to cause a jiggle. He said he heard two shots not three. Wouldn't he have heard the shot that caused the first jiggle?

In his WFAA interview with Jay Watson just after the events, Zapruder said he heard the first shot and saw JFK reacting. He then heard one or two more shots after JFK started reacting:


It makes no sense that he would fail to hear the first shot.  Everyone heard it. Zapruder was not counting the shots after that first shot and wasn’t sure if there were one or two more after that.