61
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: CIA Wallets at Tenth and Patton
« Last post by Martin Weidmann on Yesterday at 06:59:45 PM »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!
Recent Posts