"Certainly seem to be involved"? Based on what? A cop, probably abusing his authority, stopping three black men in a car. Of course they must be up to something, right? How pathetic.
BS like that happened in the 60's and is still happening now on a daily basis.
There is a car that has attracted police attention for some reason
That's called a traffic stop
and the officer at the scene suspects that they might be involved with it
Involved with what? What would be the reasonable suspicion?
Unit 72 is an Officer TL Cox, who is a member of the Patrol Division, and not the Traffic Division, so a simple traffic stop is pretty unlikely. In the continuing exchange between 72 and the dispatcher, we learn that the vehicle in question is registered to none of the three men Cox is asking about. There appears to be more than just a simple speeding ticket going on here. Of course, you'll to BS around this, like playing the race card as a get out of jail free card.
You can also consider the case of Charles Givens. At 1:46, Inspector Sawyer picks up his mic and transmits the following:
We have a man we would like to have you pass this up on to the CID to see if we can pick this man up. Charles Douglas Givens, G-I-VE-N-S. He's a colored male, thirty-seven, six foot three, a hundred sixty-five pounds. He has an ID number in the Sheriff's Department, 37954. He's a porter that worked on this floor up here. He has a police record and he left.Certainly seems like some suspicion is being thrown Givens' way, and Sawyer has no problem publicly naming Givens on the radio.
Then again, you've already admitted that the notion that cops would never broadcast the name of a suspect was nothing more than an invention of your own device, so there's no point in continuing argument over the ghosts in your head.
Why wouldn't Westbrook do the same if he found identification in the mystery wallet?
Duh... Because he found it at a murder scene and could be linking an innocent white man to a serious crime.
This is simply another of your suppositions, again with some extra race card to attempt further obfuscation.
Bottom line is that you are trying to compare apples and oranges and it's lame.
No, the bottom line is that the departure point for this subthread was a baseless, unsupported, claim about the cops never broadcasting the name of a suspect.
And sure, they will use the TV news in a search for serious offenders, but only after there is no more reasonable doubt that the suspect is actually involved in the crime. That's not the case here. Westbrook could not make the determination at the scene that the wallet for certain belonged to Tippit's killer.
The "reasonable doubt" part doesn't come into play until the Shine-Ola hits the courtroom fan. The cops will feed the name of a "person of interest" (not even a suspect) to the media if they think it might generate a needed lead, usually because they can't find the PoI.
An FBI agent present at the scene of a crime somehow isn't a witness? Are you for real?
Barrett wasn't a witness to the crime, which is what I meant by "witnesses" in "witnesses and gawkers." Most people would at least consider that particular usage as a possibilty. Not you.
I don't know who else Westbrook asked, but I do know that Bob Barrett said he did ask him. I could argue that off duty officer Croy, who was the first to arrive at the scene, confirmed the presence of the wallet, but I don't want to do that simply because the only way Croy apparently confirmed it was in a text written on a photograph which now, for unclear reasons, can not be produced. So, we're stuck with Barrett said and you, rather dishonestly, as per usuals, are asking about more than one person because you know full well that we don't know who else (if anybody) was asked. All you want to do is argue that just because an FBI agent is the only one who came forward with the information it is somehow not valid because he's the only one. It's utterly pathetic and exactly what is to be expected from a LN.
Supposedly, Rookstool has a copy of a frame of the Reiland film where Croy wrote something about being the guy who "found Oswald's wallet." But Rookstool never quotes Croy as saying that Croy found any Oswald or Hidell ID. Rookstool certainly would have done so had Croy said it himself. Dale Myers interviewed Croy several years before Rookstool, and Myers says that Croy never mentioned anything about finding Oswald or Hidell IDs. So, did Croy know on 11/22 that the wallet was Oswald's? Or did Rookstool present his matching-wallet-flap spiel to an aged Croy who simply went with what he was presented, just like John Stringer did with John Canal's presentation.
FWIW, Ron Reiland said on 11/22/63 that the wallet was Tippit's "billfold". However, he's wrong about a number of details about the crime, so I can't see this statement being definitive in and of itself. Then again Reiland was at the scene filming the Police going through the billfold/wallet/notebook/coffeemaker, and his statement was recorded contemporaneously with the events.
I bring up the question of, did Westbrook ask anyone else (including and especially the radio dispatcher) about Oswald/Hidell because it's hard to believe that Westbrook would have asked
only Barrett, given the situation. Further, if Westbrook didn't know whether the supposed "Oswald/Hidell" was a bystander, why would he not try to find out who this bystander might be? This of course would involve asking the bystanders at the scene if they were or knew Oswald or Hidell.
So many people? How many people were there? And who said that no one would have remembered? You seem to think that anybody who is present at a crime scene would automatically want to get involved by coming forward. Talk to some murder investigators for once and you'll find out quickly that's not the way it works in the real world.
In this photo, there are 28 people not including the uniformed officer:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184761/m1/1/zoom/?resolution=2&lat=1504.5&lon=750There are probably additional people out of frame, especially at the rear of Car #10, and likely others on the North side of the street. So not too bad of a crowd.
Soon after the killing a number of self-appointed researchers began literally going door-to-door in the area around the crime scene looking for additional witnesses. Marguerite Oswald was the first, followed by the likes of Mark Lane, Vince Salandria, Shirley Martin, and George and Patricia Nash. From these effors, not a single witness turned up who mentioned an Oswald/Hidell wallet. Nor did they find anyone who remembered the Police asking about an Oswald or a Hidell.
You can "figure" all you want. Get back to me when you have something more solid than just your imagination. What you think the authorities should have done doesn't matter one iota.
That's a bit rich coming from a guy who arbitrarily invents police procedure and retroactively assigns it to the JFK case.
it would allow the DPD to quickly rule out the owner as a suspect.
How exactly do you rule out somebody as a suspect for a murder by doing a name/ID check?
You use the information gathered from the ID check to figure out where the person lives and works, then investigate from there. If the person of interest turns out to have a solid alibi, then you can rule them out. If the don't, then they stay in the suspect box. It's not that hard to figure out.
But I'll gladly tell you why both pieces of evidence (the wallet and the jacket) are tainted. There is no chain of custody for either. Both were apparently handled by officers that remained unidentified. Both pieces of evidence dissappeared out of sight for a while and then suddenly showed up at the police station. And for both items there is a problem with the description of it. A jacket first described several times as being white suddenly turned grey at the police station and it is marked by police officers who could not and did not hold it simply because they were not at the location where it was found. The wallet was initially described as containing a drivers' license and a credit card suddenly showed up at the police station without those two items in it but instead with a fake Hidell in it.
This is the Bentley/McDonald WFAA interview from November 23d:
Bentley: I asked for his name and he refused to give me his name. I removed his wallet from his back pocket and obtained his identification
and also asked him if he was still living at the Elsberry [Elspeth] address, and he says, "you find out for yourself."
Biffle: What kind of identification did he have?
Bentley: The card that I got this information from was a Dallas Public Library card. He had other identification
such as a Driver's license,
I believe, and,
uh, hmm, credit cards and
things like that."Such as," when followed by a list of things generally refers to hypothetical examples of a larger group. This is amplified by the use of "I believe" to disclaim certainty of a driver's license and having to stop and think ("Umm, uhh") before he continues onto the "credit cards" then finishing off with the vague generic "and things like that." The only item Bentley was definite about was the library card. The level of certainty goes downhill quickly after that. The "driver's license" could simply have been Oswald's DD1173, which did resemble a contemporary driver's license. Bentley's statement implies what he thought was important at the time: something that combined a name and an address. And it shows that he wasn't trying to generate a itemized, exact list of the contents of Oswald's wallet.
That being taken care of, Gus Rose's inability to remember exactly which DPD officer gave him the wallet does not "taint" or otherwise invalidate it as evidence.
As an LN apologist for the incompetent DPD you will no doubt refuse to accept that any of this is a problem because you have to to keep a flawed weak narrative alive.
Once again, Martin throws in his best adjectives as a substitute for presenting evidence or generating good arguments.
