Bentley wrote: "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest." "Identification" is, of course, much more specific than "information."
Bla bla bla... your desperate need to score a minor point is duly noted.
"Turned over" implies a physical transfer. The only physical identification that Bentley could have turned over is what he took from Oswald,
Sure, and what exactly did Bentley turn over? He said it himself; "his identification", meaning of course Oswald's. Not a word about Hidell. Now, isn't that strange? Not a word about there being ID's in two different names and not knowing which one is the correct name. Nothing, nada, zero....
I didn't imagine that FBI agent Barrett said there was a wallet at the Tippit scene and that Westbrook asked him about Oswald and Hidell, did I? I also didn't imagine that Ron Reiland said it was a wallet (which he mistakenly believed belonged to Tippit), did I?
Did I imagine that none of the four officers who were with Oswald in the car said anything about a Hidell ID being in Oswald's wallet and that there is no DPD report that mentions finding such a vital piece of evidence?
Did I imagine that only Hill and Carroll made very vague comments about the Hidell ID in their WC testimony, some six months later, and that the WC didn't even call Bentley (the man who actually inspected the wallet) to testify about finding the Hidell ID? That would be the same Hill, btw, who also screwed up the chain of custody for the revolver, but that's another issue.
There is no evidentiary case to show that the Hidell ID was in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, but there most certainly is a circumstantial case (not a very strong one, I'll grant you that) that there was indeed a wallet found at the Tippit scene which contained Oswald's ID and the fake Hidell ID.
So, given this, yes I do think you should at least try to prove me wrong with something a bit more than assumptions about what was in the wallet Bentley gave to Baker and when he gave it to him.
Who? Oh you mean Bentley.... sure he knew better what he did that day than I do. He just failed miserably in communicating what he did and when he did it.
No, I'm simply saying that there are police procedures about how to handle evidence. There should at least be a conclusive chain of custody, starting with the person who actually found the item and there should be at least one report about the circumstances of the discovery. But wait, I just realized who I am talking to... now you are going to try to turn this into a pages long go nowhere discussion about police procedures, right? Well don't...because I am not going to go there.
Yes I do know that. It makes no difference. Your quote from Bentley's report made it clear that he turned over "his identification" to Lt. Baker and then he went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest. In other words, he gave the "identification" to Baker when he left the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose, at that time, was already talking to Oswald!
The crux of your position is summarized by two statements. The first is:
No, I'm simply saying that there are police procedures about how to handle evidence. There should at least be a conclusive chain of custody, starting with the person who actually found the item and there should be at least one report about the circumstances of the discovery. The problem is, the existence of any particular procedure that you presume to exist in this particular matter is liable to be just that: nothing more than your own presumption. I don't really know what level of detail period-correct DPD police officers would have been expected to give in their reports. I don't thiyou do, either.
You then fall back on the ole standby: appeal to chain of custody, witch you habitually repeat as mantra at the scantest hint of ambiguity. Just like any other 2nd rate prison lawyer. Here too, I keep getting the feeling that you don't actually know how that part really worked, either.
Your second statement is:
Your quote from Bentley's report made it clear that he turned over "his identification" to Lt. Baker and then he went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest. In other words, he gave the "identification" to Baker when he left the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose, at that time, was already talking to Oswald!Bentley's account on this point is pretty terse:
I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
We only know that Bentley gave Baker the IDs (in whatever form) at some point before proceeding to Westbrook's office, but don't don't know how much time passed between Bentley showing up at the Robbery and Homicide office, Bentley handing over the ID, and Bentley leaving. Further, there is nothing in Bentley's report that directly relates when Oswald was turned over to when the ID was turned over. Bentley arrived with Oswald, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker. Like Bentley, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker brought Oswald to the Robbery and Homicide Bureau office. Walker stayed in Fritz's office with Oswald, McDonald left to have his injuries checked, while Hill and Carrol proceeded to Westbrook's office to do some report writing.
Hill's and Carrol's trajectory through City Hall matched Bentley's, and that the three arrived together in the first place. The implication should be clear: Bentley arrived in the Homicide office with Oswald, and turned over Oswald's ID's at the same time as their owner's
In short, the idea that Bentley cold not have turned over the ID's before Gus Rose got them from the unnamed officer is simply a fantasy.
