Tony Austin

Lots of good advice and interesting comments. Thanks to everyone who has replied on this thread. I think the forum works best when we are trying to help each other. Kind regards Tony

Thanks for the advice guys, I will get hold of copies of those books soon. Regards Tony

Hi folks, I am currently doing general research into the subject of Jack Ruby. I would be grateful if any members of the forum could advise me of any particular books, magazines, articles or documentaries that they would recommend as providing accurate, interesting and insightful informative on this subject. All suggetions welcome, I would rather have too much information than too little. Thanks for any help in this matter, Regards Tony

Yes, I agree with you there, Michael. As to why Oswald decided to purchase his rifle via mail-order when he knew full well he would be attempting an illegal act with that weapon within just a few days of receiving it (attempting to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker) --- my answer to that inquiry is this: ~shrug~ And everyone else's answer should be that same "shrug" too, because nobody can know for sure why Kook Oswald did the nutty things he did in 1963.....because he never told anybody why he did them prior to meeting his Maker in the City Hall basement. It seems strange to me that Oswald did not apply for a mail box using the name Hidell and then arrange for the rifle that was ordered in the name of Hidell to be delivered to that mail box. Ordering a rifle using a false name and then arranging for it to be delivered to a mail box that is being used in your real name seems to be strange self-defeating behaviour. Another question to give a big shrug in reply I presume.

It is interesting to ask questions of the "if only" and "what if" type when looking it historic events. With regards to the Kennedy assassination you could ask "what if the Chicago plot had succeeded?" There was a plot to assassinate President Kennedy when he visited Chicago on the 2nd day of November 1963. However, the FBI were tipped off about the plot and they informed the Secret Service. The Secret Service then worked with the Chicago police to arrest the plotters and stop the assassination from happening. What would have happened if the FBI had never been tipped off? The assassination might have happened in Chicago and it appears that the blame would have fallen upon an ex-marine who was stationed at a U2 base in Japan at one time, who had extreme political views, who started in new job in the summer of 1963 working in a warehouse that had windows overlooking the road where the Presidential parade would pass a few months later. Exactly the same as it was for Lee Harvey Oswald in reality, only in this case the man taking the blame would be Thomas Arthur Vallee. Going back to the original thread, we can ask what would have happened if it had rained all day, the bubble top had been used and the assassination attempt abandoned? Nobody knows, but I would guess that a few weeks later President Kennedy would be shot in his Limousine on a parade route through another city. The man blamed would probably be an ex-marine who once served at a U2 base in Japan, had extreme political views and who just happened to work in a warehouse over looking the parade route. His name would not be Thomas Arthur Vallee or Lee Harvey Oswald but I expect he would have three names and the Warren Commission would have named him as the lone assassin. I expect that Mr Von Pein would be trying to persuade us that this man acted alone! There were powerful people at work with regards to the assassination of President Kennedy. If the Dealey Plaza shooting had not gone ahead they would have got him eventually, one way or another.

___________________________________________________________________________ Thanks, Tony. I wonder if he saw anyone getting or taking that kind of paper, of at least the required length, from his work area in the days leading up to the assassination. Also, regarding Lee's question, does anyone on the Forum know if the electrical boxes for the elevators were in the basement? Thanks, --Thomas Tony I am sure the paper bag produced by the FBI ( one of 4) was tested and neither the paper nor the tape came from the TSBD Ian Ian, The Warren Commission's official conclusion was that the paper bag and the tape came from the TSBD. If you look at The Warren Commission Report, Chapter4, pages 135 and 136 you can see this: http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/index.php go to pages 135 and 136 Tony

Perhaps for the same reason they fingerprinted Oswald twice. Also I thought Fritz kept one in his desk and that only 2 went to the FBI.Maybe he kept the dented/short cycled one?. Ian, The official version is that Detective Sims took possession of the three spent cartridges at about 1:20pm and he took them to Captain Fritz at his office later that afternoon. Fritz gave them to Detective Dhority later that evening with instructions to deliver then to Lieutenant Day for fingerprinting and to return with one of the three cartridges. Captain Fritz retained the single cartridge until an FBI agent collected it from him a few days later. However, when Detective Sims testified to the Warren Commission on April 6, 1964 he could not remember taking possession of the cartridges. He testified again on April 8, 1964 and said that Detective Boyd and Captain Fritz had reminded him about taking possession of the cartridges and that he now remembered doing this. Lieutenant Day testified to the Warren Commission that he could not remember who delivered the three cartridges to him, however, in an affidavid dated May 7, 1964 he stated that Detective Dhority had reminded him that he was the person that made the delivery and so he now remembered that event. He spoke about being asked to check for fingerprints even though he had done this already when he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Day made an affidavid on June 23, 1964 and this time he mentioned that he was asked to "recheck" for fingerprints as if it would be quite routine to be asked to "recheck" for fingerprints on small cartridge cases that had already been checked for prints. In neither affidavid does he say whether he actually checked for fingerprints on the evening of November 22, 1963. Day's Affidavids: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day2.htm With Detective Sims and Lieutenant Day showing difficulty in remembering events you might wonder if Detective Dhority had remembered things correctly. Perhaps Lieutenant Day did not check the Cartridges for prints that evening, he just retained two and gave Dhority one back without doing any processing and Dhority had not remembered this correctly. After all, his affidavid was made 6 months after the event. However, in the City of Dallas archives Box 3, Folder 5, Item 1 is a report by Dhority. It is not dated but this type of report would have been made soon after the assassination. In this report Dective Dhority makes a more emphatic statement that Lieutenant Day checked the cartridges for fingerprints than he makes in the later affidavid. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box3.htm This seems to suggest that Lieutenant Day really did check for fingerprints on the cartridges twice that day. Tony Tony Its only odd if they are the same cartridges, Surely their chain of evidence would establish these facts .An evidence bag or envelope would have to be signed for before fingerprinting or any testing could take place .If they were tested by Day he would sign for possession ,test them, rebag them and send them off to the FBI who in turn would sign possession of them . Would you agree? . Ian Ian, Thanks, I can see what you are getting at. The story with regard to initials scratches on cartridges, names written on the evidence envelope, whether the envelope was sealed or not etc etc gets quite complicated. I need to put it together in some sort of logical order to explore this point further. Unfortunately, I have house guests for the next week and I will not have time to look at this until next weekend. I will get back on this matter when I can. Unless anybody out there has all the facts to hand and would like to 'chip in' Tony

Perhaps for the same reason they fingerprinted Oswald twice. Also I thought Fritz kept one in his desk and that only 2 went to the FBI.Maybe he kept the dented/short cycled one?. Ian, The official version is that Detective Sims took possession of the three spent cartridges at about 1:20pm and he took them to Captain Fritz at his office later that afternoon. Fritz gave them to Detective Dhority later that evening with instructions to deliver then to Lieutenant Day for fingerprinting and to return with one of the three cartridges. Captain Fritz retained the single cartridge until an FBI agent collected it from him a few days later. However, when Detective Sims testified to the Warren Commission on April 6, 1964 he could not remember taking possession of the cartridges. He testified again on April 8, 1964 and said that Detective Boyd and Captain Fritz had reminded him about taking possession of the cartridges and that he now remembered doing this. Lieutenant Day testified to the Warren Commission that he could not remember who delivered the three cartridges to him, however, in an affidavid dated May 7, 1964 he stated that Detective Dhority had reminded him that he was the person that made the delivery and so he now remembered that event. He spoke about being asked to check for fingerprints even though he had done this already when he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Day made an affidavid on June 23, 1964 and this time he mentioned that he was asked to "recheck" for fingerprints as if it would be quite routine to be asked to "recheck" for fingerprints on small cartridge cases that had already been checked for prints. In neither affidavid does he say whether he actually checked for fingerprints on the evening of November 22, 1963. Day's Affidavids: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day2.htm With Detective Sims and Lieutenant Day showing difficulty in remembering events you might wonder if Detective Dhority had remembered things correctly. Perhaps Lieutenant Day did not check the Cartridges for prints that evening, he just retained two and gave Dhority one back without doing any processing and Dhority had not remembered this correctly. After all, his affidavid was made 6 months after the event. However, in the City of Dallas archives Box 3, Folder 5, Item 1 is a report by Dhority. It is not dated but this type of report would have been made soon after the assassination. In this report Dective Dhority makes a more emphatic statement that Lieutenant Day checked the cartridges for fingerprints than he makes in the later affidavid. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box3.htm This seems to suggest that Lieutenant Day really did check for fingerprints on the cartridges twice that day. Tony

OK, no takers. If you look at the testimony of Lieutentant Day before the Warren Commission, you find on one page: http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol14/page253.php ,about half way down, Day is taking about what he did on the day Kennedy was assassinated when he was on the sixth floor at about 1:20pm. You will see the bit where he says: "..Were taken. I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three, did not find fingerprints. As I had finished that, Captain Fritz sent word for me..." So, Lieutenant Day says he fingerprinted the three spent cartridges on the afternoon of the assassination and Dhority says that Lieutenant Day fingerprinted the three cartridges when he took them to him later that evening. Now that seems strange to me, why would Lieutenant Day fingerprint the cartridges twice?

The three spent rifle cartridges Anybody notice anything strange about this affidavit by Detective Dhority? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dhority2.htm

Thomas, Don't forget Troy Eugene West who worked as a mail wrapper on the first floor. He never left his work area throughout his normal working day. He would even eat his lunch close to his wrapping machine. Just because the President of the United States was going past the book depository in his motorcade that day he did not see any reason why he should change his routine. He was at usual place of work on the first floor at the time of the assassination and he did not see anybody until the police arrived. Troy is an interesting character because he never saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the days leading up to the assassination getting the paper that he supposedly used to make a bag for his rifle. His testimony to the Warren Commission: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rus/m_i_russ/west.htm Tony

Bernice, Many thanks for your contributions. Reading through the above you see the huge amount of contradictions between the Tom Alyea version of events and the Dallas Police and Sheriff's Department version of events. I was interested in the comment ".. crime scene peolpe who did not see the original positioning because they were not called upon the scene until after the rifle was found nearly an hour later." An awful lot of law enforcement people would have had to have been lying for this to be true! With regards to general timing of events, I was interested to find that the evidence envelope that contained the three spent cartridges had a time written on it. As I said in my article, when Captain Fritz saw the rifle he told Detective Sims to go and get Lieutenant Day to photograph the weapon. Sims found Day and helped him to get the spent cartridges fingerprinted and put into an evidence envelope. The two men then returned to where the rifle was found. Lieutenant Day testifed to the Warren Commission that the date and time that Sims took charge of the envelope was written on the envelope. He told them that the writing says: November 22, 1963, 1:23pm This is interesting because it does not appear to be an estimate to the nearest 5 or 10 minutes eg 1:20pm or 1:25pm etc. Putting it as 1:23pm suggests that the time was checked on a watch just before it was written. see: http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page256.php This would suggest the the rifle was found about 1:20pm and that the crime scene officers must have been on the scene earlier than the 1:20pm time recorded in various statements mentioned earlier. Tony

Bernice, Many thanks for your contributions. Reading through the above you see the huge amount of contradictions between the Tom Alyea version of events and the Dallas Police and Sheriff's Department version of events. I was interested in the comment ".. crime scene peolpe who did not see the original positioning because they were not called upon the scene until after the rifle was found nearly an hour later." An awful lot of law enforcement people would have had to have been lying for this to be true! With regards to general timing of events, I was interested to find that the evidence envelope that contained the three spent cartridges had a time written on it. As I said in my article, when Captain Fritz saw the rifle he told Detective Sims to go and get Lieutenant Day to photograph the weapon. Sims found Day and helped him to get the spent cartridges fingerprinted and put into an evidence envelope. The two men then returned to where the rifle was found. Lieutenant Day testifed to the Warren Commission that the date and time that Sims took charge of the envelope was written on the envelope. He told them that the writing says: November 22, 1963, 1:23pm This is interesting because it does not appear to be an estimate to the nearest 5 or 10 minutes eg 1:20pm or 1:25pm etc. Putting it as 1:23pm suggests that the time was checked on a watch just before it was written. see: http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page256.php This would suggest the the rifle was found about 1:20pm and that the crime scene officers must have been on the scene earlier than the 1:20pm time recorded in various statements mentioned earlier. Tony

Mike, It gets Fritz away from the snipers nest in the immediate minutes following the discovery of the shells. If he's not there he can't tamper with them. Lee I hardly think that he would really have to lie about that. As it stands we have film footage from Alyea of Fritz entering the TSBD. If this is the case then Alyea had to enter after Fritz. So then to do we have Gerald Hill saying he yelled down to the ground as well, and then shortly after he heard Fritz et al coming up in the freight elevator. I think it is plausible that Fritz may have been still on the ground when they were found. Basically what we have is crime scene photos that Mooney says are consistent with what he saw. This is completely contradictory to Craig who said they were all neat in a row, and Alyea who says they could be covered by a hand towel. I might also note that not even Alyea seems to agree with Craig. Mike Mike If Fritz got to the TBSD at 12:58PM then I think it conceivable that Alyea could get the footage of Fritz entering, follow him in, Fritz stops on most of the floors then goes to the 7th. Alyea is then on the 6th. The casings are found at 1:15PM. Fritz comes down from the 7th floor 1:16PM-1:17PM. Mike - have you seen any affidavits from Luke Mooney about his discovery? I've looked in the DPD files and there is zilch for Mooney. Lee Lee, I could not find an affidavit from Mooney but I did find a brief report he wrote dated the day after the assassination that you might find interesting and, sorry to say, it will probably provoke more arguments! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mooney1.htm Tony

Tony, How could Fritz have aided Alyea within a minute of the casings being found, when he was not even on the 6th floor when they were found? This is only one of many questions. There are some serious accuracy issues with the article, if you wish I will address them. Mike Mike, If you look at the "Report on the officer's duties in regards to the President's murder - R.M. Sims and E.L. Boyd" in the City of Dallas Archives: JFK collection in box 3, folder 4, item 5 on the second page you find that they state that the empty hull were found about 1:15pm and that Lt Day and Detective Studebaker (the crime scene officers) arrived on the scene about 1:20pm ( see: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box3.htm ) This fits in with Lee Farley's reference to Detective Senkel stating the spent cartridges were found at 1:15pm. If we assume that Captain Fritz took a minute to get to the sniper's nest, then it appears that there would be 4 minutes, between 1:16pm and 1:20pm when Captain Fritz could have picked up the spent cartridges for Tom Alyea before the crime scene officers arrived. I am not aware of an evidence to show that Tom Alyea was not on the sixth floor at this time. If you have found some serious accuracy errors in my article, please let me know what they are. I am not a JFK assassination expert, I am only a student of the assassination. If I get things wrong I would rather know about it and use the information to increase my understanding of the issues. So feel free to point out my errors.

Captain Fritz and the spent cartridges: another look at the Alyea allegation. Hi folks, The subject of the spent rifle cartridges is quite topical at the moment so I thought that some of you might like to read an article I have done that looks at one aspect of this subject. Did_Captain_William_Fritz_have_a.rtf

Thanks for your comments guys. I hope that one day somebody will set up a reconstruction of a gunman in the sixth floor window and demonstrate how a sniper using boxes as a gun rest looks at ground level compared to how a sniper not using boxes to rest his rifle on looks at ground level.

President John F Kennedy was assassinated on the 22nd of November 1963 as he was travelling in a motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. According to the official Warren Commission Report he died of gun shot wounds when an ex-marine by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald fired at him from a tall building. The shots were allegedly fired from a window in the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Police personnel were on the sixth floor of the book depository soon after the assassination. The first person to search the “sniper’s nest” area was Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney who went to the southeast corner of the sixth floor at about 1:15pm. Hidden behind a wall of boxes he found three boxes stacked up against the window. He soon came to an opinion as to why the boxes had been placed there. In a report dated the day after the assassination he wrote that he found a “cubby hole” constructed out of cardboard cartons and “…Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle.” He went further in his testimony before the Warren Commission: “I had to turn myself sideways to get in there that is when I saw the expended shells and the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon. And, also, there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don’t know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have been lain—at the same angle that the shots were fired from.” Luke Mooney believed that the three boxes had been piled up against the window to be used as a rest for the rifle used by the assassin who killed President Kennedy. His opinion was shared by the two Crime Scene Service Section officers who examined the area around the window that day. Detective Robert Studebaker testified to the Warren Commission and he was questioned by Mr Stern about the arrangement of the boxes: Mr. Stern: “Perhaps this is not the witness to establish it, but I think it might be useful to know if he has any opinion as to why the boxes were placed that way?” Mr. Studebaker: “A good gun rest.” Mr. Stern: “In that arrangement?” Mr. Studebaker: “Yes, it was a good gun rest.” Studebaker’s colleague, Lieutenant Day, testified to the Warren Commission and he discussed the three boxes and, at one point, he informed Mr Belin that: “641 is a box found in front of the window, Texas School Book Depository. Apparently the gun had rested across this…” Not surprisingly, the view adopted by the Warren Commission was that the three boxes stacked up against the window were placed there by Lee Harvey Oswald to use as a gun rest for his rifle. We shall move on to look at how the gunman on the sixth floor might have actually used the boxes at the time of the assassination. We can do this by looking at the testimonies of two key witnesses. The two witnesses were in Dealey Plaza near to the book depository when the shooting started and they looked up and saw a man with a rifle in the end window of the sixth floor. The first witness was a local Steam fitter by the name of Howard Leslie Brennan. According to an affidavit he signed on the day of the assassination, he was sitting on a wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street across the road from the book depository directly facing the east end of the building. In his affidavit, Brennan describes looking at the second row of windows from the top (which would be the sixth floor) and seeing a man in the east window sitting there prior to the President’s motorcade arriving. Brennan goes on to say that he looked up at the same window later when the motorcade was travelling through Dealey Plaza. He states that he looked up at the window “…at the time of the last explosion” and he saw that the man was taking aim with a high powered rifle. He noted that he could see “all of the barrel of gun” as well stating: “I could see this man from about his belt up.” These observations raise a number of questions. Firstly, the gunman was supposedly resting the front of his gun barrel on one edge of the front box that was positioned on the window ledge as you would expect from the arrangement of the boxes (see upper window of photograph: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/tsbdwindow.gif.). He was firing his last shot at Kennedy, which would involve the rifle being at a downward angle of about 15 degrees. This being the case, how could Brennan down at ground level see so much of the rifle barrel? From that position you would expect him to be able to see only that small part of the barrel that was sticking out past the edge of the box and not “all of the barrel of the gun.” Secondly, you would expect a gunman who was using three boxes piled up in a window to rest his gun on not to be very visible. Most of his body would be behind the boxes and not visible from the ground, which leads us to question how could Howard Brennan have seen the man from about his belt up? The observations being made by Brennan seem to suggest the gunman was not behind the boxes. Some months later, Howard Brennan testified before the Warren Commission and told Mr Belin that he was looking at the gunman when he was taking his last shot. The following exchange occurs: Mr. Belin: “Would you describe exactly what you saw when you saw him this last time?” Mr. Brennan: “Well, it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for a second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then disappeared.” And later: Mr. Brennan: “Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.” Mr.Belin: “How much of the gun do you believe you saw?” Mr. Brennan: “I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.” Brennan has been criticised for saying that the gunman appeared to be standing up with his gun pointing out of the window because this would not have been physically possible. However, he was probably assuming that the lower edges of the windows he could see were all at roughly waist height to anybody standing behind them. In fact the lower edges were very low in relation to the floors of the building and anybody standing behind an upper widow of the building would find the lower edge close to their knees. You can see Brennan’s confusion when he tells the Warren Commission that he thought the two black men he saw on the fifth floor were standing behind the window when, in fact, it is clear from their testimonies that they were crouched down behind the window. Having understood that aspect of his testimony we can see from the rest of the testimony that it appears that the gunman was over towards the left side of the window, as viewed from outside, using the left side of the window sill to rest his gun on as he took his last shot. The box on the window ledge was positioned about three quarters of the way over to the right side of the window as shown in this picture: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/WindowViews/tsbdwindow.gif. (in the top window) and there is nothing in Brennan’s testimony to suggest they were being used by the gunman. It is interesting to look at the Warren Commission testimony of Detective Robert Studebaker, one of the two Crime Scene Service Section officers that examined the three boxes found up against the window. The following exchange with Mr Ball occurs at the end of Studebaker’s testimony: Mr. Studebaker: “Yes, it was a good gun rest.” Mr. Ball: “With the box in front lower than the box behind?” Mr. Studebaker: “In other words, it is like this – you see – it would be down on a level like this – it shows where the butt of the gun was up behind him. He was down like this – nobody could see him from the street. He was behind this window. He didn’t shoot this way because everybody would be looking right at him.” At this point Mr Ball changes the subject. However, it is clear that Detective Studebaker took a careful look at the arrangement of the three boxes and decided that a gunman using them as a gun rest would not be clearly visible to anybody down at street level. This presents us with a problem because the statements made by Howard Brennan suggests that the sniper in the sixth floor window was very visible and so was his rifle. To explain this apparent contradiction we could advance the theory that the sniper did not use the three boxes as a gun rest when he shot at President Kennedy. We can now move on and look at the testimony of the other witness, Amos Euins, and see if his observations support this theory. Amos Lee Euins was fifteen years old at the time of the assassination. When the shooting started he was across the road from the book depository standing on the corner at the junction of Houston and Elm as the Presidential motorcade drove past. He told the Warren Commission that he watched the Presidential Limousine drive around the corner and he remembered seeing what looked like a pipe sticking out of an upper window of the book depository. He was questioned by Arlen Specter regarding what he saw: Mr. Specter: “What did you think it was when you first saw it?” Mr. Euins: “I thought it was a piece of pipe or something sticking out of the window.” Mr. Specter: “Did it look like a piece of metal to you?” Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir: just a little round piece of pipe.” Mr. Specter: “About an inch in diameter, would you say?” Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir.” Mr. Specter: “And how long was the piece of pipe you saw?” Mr. Euins: “It was sticking out about that much.” Mr. Specter: “About 14 or 15 inches?” Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir …” Later: Mr. Specter: “…, you didn’t see anything about a stock or any other part of the rifle?” Mr. Euins: “No, sir - - not with the first shot. You see, the President was still right along down in here somewhere on the first shot.” Later again: Mr. Specter: “…Now, when you looked at the rifle later, you described seeing some of the trigger part.” Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir.” Mr. Specter: “Now, describe as fully as you can for us what you saw then, Amos.” Mr. Euins: “Well, when he stuck it out, you know - - after the President had come on down the street further, you know he kind of stuck it out more, you know.” Mr. Specter: “How far was it sticking out of the window would you say then, Amos?” Mr. Euins: “I would say it was about something like that.” Mr. Specter: “Indicating about 3 feet?” Mr. Euins: “You know - - the trigger housing and stock and receiver group out of the window.” Mr. Specter: “I can’t understand you, Amos.” Mr. Euins: “It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and trigger housing to stick out the window.” Mr. Specter: “The stock and receiving house?” Mr. Euins: “Yes.” We can look at a photograph showing the approximate arrangement of the three boxes up against the window seen in the second picture shown here: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w..._CE_733-734.pdf Next, we can look at the view that a sniper would get using those boxes as a gun rest: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...WH17_CE_724.pdf (ignore the boxes in this picture, they are not in their original positions). If we do this we can see that when the Presidential Limousine was just passing the book depository, and the first shot was being fired, the gunman would have to lift up the butt of the rifle and shoot at a steep downward angle. He would probably push more of the barrel of the gun out of the window as he did this. However, when the Limousine was further down Elm Street, and the last shot was being fired, the gunman would be able to bring the butt of the rifle down and shoot at a much gentler incline. He would be able to use the gun rest in a more comfortable position and he could pull the gun barrel back so that only a small amount extended beyond the edge of the box on the window ledge. If you look at the description given by Amos Euins it appears that the gunman was sticking more of the rifle out of the window the further the limousine went down the road. Not only that, but at the time of the last shot, the gunman appeared to have most of his rifle sticking out of the window. If the gunman had been using the boxes as a rest, at this stage, he would have been lying over the top of the boxes with just the rear part of the rifle butt resting on the front of the box on the window ledge. The barrel would not be resting on any hard surface, just supported by the sniper’s left hand, and the sniper would be in danger of dropping his rifle down onto the crowd below! We can see that, in this position, it would not have been possible for Howard Brennan to see the gunman from about his belt upwards as he testified. Amos Euins also made some interesting observations about what he could see of the gunman’s head. When he was testifying to the Warren Commission he was asked by Arlen Specter about what he saw when the third shot was fired: Mr. Specter: “What did you see in the building?” Mr. Euins: “I seen a bald spot on this man’s head, trying to look out of the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window.” The appearance of the gunman’s head was discussed again later: Mr. Specter: “Could you tell what colour hair he had?” Mr. Euins: “No, sir.” Mr. Specter: “Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?” Mr. Euins: “No, sir.” Mr. Specter: “How far back did the bald spot on his head go?” Mr. Euins: “I would say right along in here.” Mr. Specter: “Indicating about 2 ½ inches above where your hairline is. Is that about what you are saying?” Mr. Euins: “Yes, sir; right along in here.” If we put together the testimonies of the two witnesses mentioned earlier (Brennan and Euins) together with the testimony of Robert Studebaker some interesting facts emerge: Crime Scene Service Section officer Studebaker saw the three boxes in their original positions and thought they were a gun rest for the sniper who shot at Kennedy. He thought that a gunman using the gun rest would not be visible to people at ground level. Witnesses Brennan and Euins at ground level could see the 6th floor sniper very clearly. The gun rest was on the right side of the window but the sniper appeared to using the left side of the window sill. He could be seen from about his belt upwards by Brennan. The rifle barrel was sticking out of the window at the time of the first shot and, as the Limousine progressed further down Elm Street, more of the rifle was pushed out of the window. By the time of the third shot almost all of the rifle had been pushed out of the window. The gunman appeared to be putting his head out of the window to some extent and he had it turned in such a way that Amos Euins was looking straight at his bald spot towards the top of his head. If you read the testimonies of Brennan and Euins you find that both of them noticed boxes stacked up behind the gunman but neither of them reported seeing the box on the window ledge that was supposedly used to rest the gun barrel on. If you study the testimonies of the two witnesses (Brennan and Euins) and try to decide how the three boxes were used by the gunman then the answer appears to be that the boxes were not used by the gunman at all in spite of the fact they had been arranged to form a good gun rest. Before we go any further, we need to consider if there was any forensic evidence to show that the three cardboard boxes had been used as a gun rest. We saw earlier in this article that when Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney was testifying before the Warren Commission about his discovery of the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor he talked about “the boxes that were stacked up looked to be a rest for the weapon” and he went on to say “…there was a slight crease in the top box. Whether the recoil made the crease or it was placed there before the shots were fired, I don’t know. But, anyway, there was a very slight crease in the box, where the rifle could have lain - - at the same angle that the shots were fired from.” However, when Crime Scene Service Section officer Lieutenant Day testified on this matter he rejected this idea. At one point he said: “There was a scar on the top …side of this box that was sitting there. I noticed that at the time. I thought the recoil of the gun had caused that. I later decided that was in the wrong direction. It as not the recoil of the gun but I did notice this scar on the box.” Lieutenant Day was questioned about the three boxes up against the window and the following exchange can be found late in his testimony: Mr. McCloy: “Is there any indication on any of these boxes that could tell you where the rifle rested?” Mr. Day: “No, sir.” Mr. McCloy: “When it was fired?” Mr. Day: “No, sir: I couldn’t find a thing there.” Mr McCloy then changed the subject. The reply by Lieutenant Day implies he did look for some evidence. He could have looked for unusual marks or for gun powder residue on the boxes and not found any. However, because he was not questioned further when he said “I could not find a thing there” we will never know exactly what he did look for. However, it appears that this Crime Scene Service Section officer was trying to find physical evidence that a rife had been fired as it rested on the boxes and failed to find any. In other words, there is no forensic evidence to prove that the three boxes had been used as a gun rest. As we saw earlier, Detective Studebaker thought the arrangement of the three boxes in the sniper’s nest area should have made a good rest for a rifle. There would have been a number of advantages for a gunman using this rest. Firstly, he would have a firm stable rest for the gun barrel as he aimed at his target. Secondly, he would be able to avoid showing his face to the people at ground level. That way, he could avoid having witnesses seeing his face as he fired at the President and he could avoid having his photograph taken by anybody at ground level that happened to have a camera in their hands. Thirdly, he could avoid presenting himself as a clear target to be shot at. In theory, Oswald would have no way of knowing how many armed, plain clothed men had been assigned to protect the President that day and were standing in Dealey Plaza. For all he knew, a whole group of men on ground level could have pulled out hand guns and started firing at him. Oswald should have known from his training as a marine that you avoid showing too much of yourself when you are firing a weapon where there could be people shooting back at you. Using the boxes as a gun rest should have reduced this risk to him considerably and yet the evidence suggests he did not use the gun rest at all. This now brings us to the simple question: Why would Lee Harvey Oswald acting as a sniper on the sixth floor set up a gun rest using three boxes and then not use it? There are a number of possibilities we can consider. Firstly, the three boxes might have been placed up against the window by someone other than Oswald before he arrived on the scene for some purpose unrelated to the assassination. It seems very unlikely that somebody could have put some boxes up at a window in an arrangement that would make for a good gun rest just by pure chance. It should be noted that Oswald’s left palm print and right index were found on the highest of the three boxes, the box immediately behind the box that was found on the window ledge. In these circumstances, Oswald would probably not have touched the boxes or if he did touch them it would have been to move them completely out of his way. Secondly, Oswald could have placed the boxes to make himself a gun rest and then at the last minute he could have simply changed mind and decided not to use the rest. This would be a logical explanation but with all the advantages involved in using the boxes as a gun rest it would be surprising that he should make this decision. Thirdly, the reason that the gun rest was not used could be that Oswald was not the gunman and the gun rest was simply part of a fabricated crime scene that was constructed to frame Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy. Some people may reject this idea out of hand but it could explain a number of the observations that were made regarding the sniper’s nest area on the sixth floor. There were quite a few finger and palm prints that could be matched to Lee Harvey Oswald that were found on objects recovered from the sniper’s nest. This gives the impression that Oswald was in the sniper’s nest at the time of the shooting and being careless about leaving his prints on items in that area. However, if that was the case you would expect his finger and palm prints to have been found on the sides of the boxes that he had to lift up into position to form the gun rest i.e. the box resting on the window ledge and the one behind it resting on top of another box. However, the prints were found only on the top surface one box, the box that was found behind and slightly above the box that was found on top of the window ledge. If Oswald was being framed for the assassination then he could have been tricked into leaving his prints on the top surface of a cardboard box in the 24 hours before the event. For example, somebody could have asked him to hold the flaps down whilst they put a strip of tape down the middle. Once they knew his prints were on the top surface all the conspirators had to do was only touch the sides of the box (using gloves of course) and put the box in position at the time of the assassination. If this did happened, then it would be in the interest of the gunman not to use the boxes as a gun rest because he might accidentally rub off the prints belonging to Oswald in the process. He might accidentally leave his own prints on the boxes as well. If there was a highly organised conspiracy going on and someone other than Oswald was up in the sixth floor window then the individual concerned might have known there were no plain clothes police officers at ground level near the book depository. He might have known that the 112th military intelligence group (a team originally ordered to supplement the security for the President) had been told to stand down so none of their armed personnel would be in position around the book depository. He would therefore not be worried about showing too much of his body to the people at ground level. This would explain why the gunman seemed to be so blasé about being seen clearly by the crowd below. If Oswald was being framed, the conspirators might have used an Oswald look-a-like, with quite a striking resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald knowing that people looking at him up on the sixth floor would be seeing him at too great a distance to distinguish a look-a-like from the real person. It would be to the advantage of the gunman to let his face be seen by the people at ground level. This would explain why the gunman seemed unconcerned that people down in Dealey Plaza could see his face. He hoped they would see his face and later misidentify him as Lee Harvey Oswald because he looked so like him at a distance. The idea that the gun rest was not used because Oswald was being framed (and it was not Oswald firing from the sixth floor window) can be used to explain one more strange observation made that day. We saw earlier that Amos Euins made clear statements to the Warren Commission about seeing the bald spot on the head of the gunman about two and a half inches above the hairline. We can see by looking at photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald taken on the day of the assassination that he had a receding hairline but he definitely did not have a bald spot on his head. Conclusions The police arrived on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository after the assassination of President Kennedy and soon found the sniper’s nest in the southeast corner. Here they found three cardboard boxes positioned up against the widow. The arrangement of the boxes suggested they were set up to act as a gun rest for the sniper who shot at the President. This was the assumption made by the police on that day and the Warren Commission continued with that assumption thereafter. Important statements were made by Dealey Plaza witnesses Amos Euins and Howard Brennan who saw a man firing a rifle from the sixth floor and Detective Studebaker who examined the boxes found in the sniper’s nest. Their statements suggest that the gunman on the sixth floor did not use the boxes to rest his rifle on when he shot at the President. If the gunman was Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone it is difficult to see why he would have constructed the gun rest and then not used it. Particularly when you consider the important advantages associated with using the boxes as a gun rest. It is theoretically possible that an Oswald look-a-like could have fired at the President from the sixth floor sniper’s nest. This theory would explain why the gun rest was constructed but not used, why none of the boxes had fingerprints or palm prints on their sides but there were prints on the top surface of one particular box and why the gunman did not move the boxes out of the way having decided not to use them. It also explains why the gunman did not seem too concerned that people in Dealey Plaza could see his face and he was allowing so much of his body to be seen by the people at ground level. Finally, it allows us to see why Amos Euins gave very clear descriptions of a man with a white bald spot on his head shooting at the President when all the photographic and film evidence shows that Lee Harvey Oswald did not have a bald spot. The observations of two witnesses and one crime scene detective have led us to one simple question: “why would Lee Harvey Oswald acting as a sniper on the sixth floor set up a gun rest and then not use it?” There is one simple answer to this question that explains it perfectly and also explains all the other observations highlighted in this article. The answer is as follows: Lee Harvey Oswald would not have done this and the reason it was done is because Oswald was not the sniper and the three boxes were not a gun rest. REFERENCES Luke Mooney: Sheriff’s report dated 23rd November 1963 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mooney1.htm The Warren Commission Testimony of Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney 3H284 http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page284.php The Warren Commission Testimony of Detective Robert Studebaker “it was a good gun rest” 7H149 http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol7/page149.php Howard Leslie Brennan: Affidavit dated 22nd November 1963 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm The Warren Commission Testimony of Howard Leslie Brennan 3H144 http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page144.php The Warren Commission Testimony of Amos Euins Regarding the rifle 2H206 & 2H207 http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page206.php http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page207.php Regarding the bald spot 2H204 & 2H07 http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page204.php http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol2/page207.php The Warren Commission Testimony of Lieutenant Carl Day Regarding gun resting on a box 4H270 http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page270.php Regarding scar on a box 4H271 http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page271.php Regarding evidence for gun resting on boxes 4H272 http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page272.php THREE_BOXES.rtf

Proof by intimidation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Proof by verbosity) Jump to: navigation, search It has been suggested that Shotgun argumentation be merged into this article or section. (Discuss) Proof by intimidation or proof by verbosity is a reference to an argument that is so complex, so long-winded and so poorly presented by the authors that others simply affirm the illogic, lest they be forced to sift through the minute, illogical details.[1] The term is also used when the author is an authority in his field presenting his proof to people who respect a priori his insistence that the proof is valid or when the author claims that his statement is true because it is trivial or because he simply says so. Usage of this term is for the most part in good humour, though it also appears in serious criticism.[2][3] More generally, "proof by intimidation" has also been used by critics of junk science to describe cases in which scientific evidence is thrown aside in favour of a litany of tragic individual cases presented to the public by articulate advocates who pose as experts in their field.[4] Gian-Carlo Rota claimed in a memoir that the term 'proof by intimidation' was coined by Mark Kac to describe a technique used by William Feller in his lectures.[5] [edit] Argumentum verbosium Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called argumentum verbosium) that tries to persuade by overwhelming the reader or listener with such a volume of material that a proposition sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, or is so laborious to untangle and check that the proposition is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' statement, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull [xxxx]."[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity Thanks for that Raymond, my intention was to express a personal opinion in a mildly amusing way. I hope somebody out there found it funny...

Jack, Thank you for putting this article by James DiEugenio on to the forum. It is packed full of interesting information and it is a very thorough rebuttal of the book by Bugliosi. I very much enjoyed reading it. Reclaiming History is a huge challenge to conspiracy theorists as it is well researched, well written and the author uses his considerable skills as a lawyer to put forward the case for Oswald being the lone gunman and there being no conspiracy. The size of his book is also an important part of that challenge. I remember last year a couple of friends were visiting me at my house (friends with no interest in the Kennedy assassination) and they saw my copy of Reclaiming History on a table. They asked about the book and I briefly explained what it was about and who wrote it. They examined it for a while and then asked me what I thought about it. I told them that I had only read part of it at that time, the section dealing with how Jack Ruby got down into the basement of police headquarters before he shot Lee Harvey Oswald. I then said that I found this section to be full of misleading and inaccurate information and I could see that Mr Bugliosi had missed out a large amount of important information that showed that Ruby could not have got down there the way the Warren Commission said he did, this being version that Bugliosi supports. I will never forget my friends reaction, "gosh! really! is that really what you found?" I should not have been surprised by their reaction, the general public (and I include myself in this) is very prejudiced towards large books. If we see a book written by people that are well know and well qualified that is a huge tome running to many hundreds of pages we tend to assume that this is a great textbook on the subject and what is written inside must be the truth. This prejudice starts when we are at school, we learn to trust huge textbooks in the school library as the place to get truthful and accurate information. This is what makes Bugliosi's book so dangerous. His book is so huge that in future it is likely to end up in public libraries and university libraries as the great 'textbook' on the Kennedy assassination. It will be viewed as the definitive work on the subject, the thruth about what really happened. It is important that people like James DiEugenio write articles on Reclaiming History to try to meet the challenge of this book. Bugliosi talks about Gerald Posner's book 'Case Closed' and mentions the many errors and inaccuracies that conspiracy theorists have been able to find in that book. He then goes on to say "They will have a much harder time with me" However, this is not the case, as DiEugenio has shown us it is not difficult at all, all you need to have is a good knowledge of the subject. Vincent Bugliosi is an anagram of 'invincible gusto' and Mr Bugliosi is certainly full of gusto, however, he is not invincible.

Thanks for your reply Greg and thank you to Raymond for your comments. I can understand Raymond's viewpoint but I know he is wrong over one point. He has suggested that a police officer finding Tippit's wallet at the murder scene might have taken it to Tippit's widow and passed it on to her and offered his condolences at the same time. If we look at the City of Dallas Archives JFK collection Box 1 ( http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box1.htm ) in folder 4, item 6 we find a report from Davenport and Bardin regarding evidence removed from the body of officer Tippit and given to Captain Doughty of the ID bureau. The report also mentions that the personal affects of Officer Tippit were also turned over to Captain Doughty. If we then go to Box 9 ( http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box9.htm ) in folder 2, item 3 we find a CSS form by Officer Bardin which lists the 12 personal items belonging to Officer Tippit which were handed over to Captain Doughty at 3:25pm. Here we find "a black billfold" included amongst those items. This means one of two things could have happened. Firstly, Captain Westbrook, or another officer who had been with him, could have taken Tippit's wallet over to the Methodist Hospital to put together with Tippit's other possessions ( there is no paper record of this happening) or secondly, Tippit's wallet was removed from his pocket at the hospital having never been on the street and the wallet found at the Tippit murder scene did not belong to Tippit. It appears that an officer did not simply take the wallet around to Mrs Tippit. As for the two possibilities, you have to ask yourself, which one is more likely?

Tony: I believe this is a reference to a Q. & A session with Jez at Lancer's NID 1999. You can order a tape of this session for ten bucks here: http://www.jfklancer.com/catalog/nidmedia/Dallas99.html NID99-10 DALLAS RESIDENTS & WITNESSES • Shari Angel, Ed Hoffman, Connie Kritzberg, Beverly Oliver, Leonard Jaz, Toni Foster (tape), Bobby Hargis (tape) I was present at that session (organized by Ian Griggs) and have no recollection of the wallet being discussed, but that is probably only because I was anxiously waiting an opportunity to ask Jez a question about a different topic entirely, and the wallet story was simply not on my radar screen at the time. I can say, however, that Jez was suffering from a severe case of CRS (Can't Remember Squat) about nearly everything he was asked, and I wouldn't give you tuppence for Jez's 1999 memories of 11/22/63 Of course I do not doubt Martha Moyer's word on this or any other assassination-related subject (Martha is probably the most meticulous researcher since Sylvia Meagher), but I feel confident in repeating what I said in post No. 106 earlier on this thread, namely that agent Barret's wallet story as related to agent Hosty, is just another of the many wild goose stories that continue to waste the time of valuable researchers like yourself. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...4572&st=105 Thanks for the information Raymond. Perhaps I am on a 'wild goose chase' with this one. I find the whole episode of the wallet being found at the murder scene of Tippit very strange because: 1) There is no statement of any members of the public who were around at that time in which they state that they found the wallet, they saw somebody else find the wallet or that they saw police officers looking at the wallet. 2) There is statement from any police officer or FBI agent in which they mention that a wallet was found at the murder scene. This means there is no information as to where the wallet was found, who found the wallet and who the wallet belonged to. 3) Non of the crime scene photographs show where the wallet was found in relation to the car. None of the photographs were marked to show were the wallet was found having been already picked up when the photographer arrived as was done in the case of the long paper bag found on the sixth floor of the depository (assuming of course there was a bag found there!) 4) The Warren Commission never questioned any members of the public, police officers or FBI agents about the wallet. The Commission appeared to be unaware that a wallet had been found (probably due to 1) and 2) above) 5) There are numerous paper records/receipts in the archives relating to items of personal propery which recorded when items were passed from one person to another by police officers, FBI agents etc and yet there are no paper records relating to the wallet that was found at the Tippit murder scene. All these things and yet we know that a wallet was found at the murder scene because WFAA-TV camerman Ron Reiland filmed police officers examining it soon after the murder. Very strange....

I've been trying to figure out why this story of the planted wallet fails to pass my "smell" test, and I think I've figured out why. It's because the wrong wallet disappeared! If there was a mass plot to frame Oswald and cover up the existence of two wallets, involving mass perjury by the DPD, the right call would have been for them to accept the wallet found at the Tippit site and deny the one found on Oswald. After all, no one filmed them with a wallet at the theater. Furthermore, by denying the existence of the wallet at the Tippit site they would have been denying themselves a valuable piece of evidence, without which establishing Oswald's presence at the Tippit site would become much more difficult. Since the decision to hide the wallet at the Tippit site would have to have been made within hours, before Oswald's death, they would have been denying themselves a link in the chain with which they hoped to hang Oswald for the murder of a cop, in exchange for what? that Oswald had his wallet on him... how incriminating is that? If they'd have agreed on the story that the wallet was found at the site, on the other hand, they could have used Oswald's sneaking into the theater as supporting evidence, and EVERYONE would have bought it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pat, who said anything about a mass plot? The following has been established so far in this thread (at least to the satifaction of most involved in the discussion): 1. The wallet could not have belonged to Tippit. Do you accept that? Do you even accept yet that what is shown in the film is a wallet? 2. Not one of the five officers who escorted Oswald to City Hall mentioned anything about dual IDs in their earliest statements. Do you accept that this is highly unusual -- if indeed Oswald actually had dual ID on him? 3. Bentley (who was the one LATER specifically credited with finding the dual ID on Oswald in the squad car) was not called to give evidence before the WC, and the only officer who attested to the Hidell alias being found in this way had to be led in questioning to arrive at that damning statement. So why wasn't Bentley called? He supposedly not only found this evidence, but was also involved in the actual arrest. 3. Fritz did not question Oswald until the Saturday about the alleged Hidell alias. Do you accept that this was at the very least, curious - especially given that for all Fritz supposedly knew... there may have actually been a real "Hidell" out there who was either in league with Oswald, or had vital information about him? 4. Barrett has consistently maintained that wallet was Oswald's. Why do you cast aspersions at Hosty over Barrett's claim? I can now add that researcher, Martha Moyer, in the late '90s interviewed another cop present when the wallet was found - Leonard Jez. He confirmed to Martha that the wallet was Oswald's. Once it is accepted that Oswald did not have any ID on his person, other than his own (and I accept it on the basis that it is inconceivable that all of the cops in the car had simultaneous memory loss on the day they gave their statements, and equally inconceivable that they all decided it was not worth mentioning in those statements), you have to take the next step: where did the Hidell ID come from, if not from Oswald's arrest wallet? The logical place is the place where a wallet, said by an FBI agent and a Dallas cop to contain such ID, was found. As for Dallas cops wanting to avenge Tippit's murder by finding the REAL culprit/s -forget it. Ever wonder why Tippit was never promoted? If the shooter DID say "poor dumb cop", it may be because he knew him. Read his personnel files in the DPD records. It wasn't just an expression - it was (even if just by accident), an apt description. He was a loner, and not bright (among other evidence for this is that others had to write his police reports). Oh, and he possibly suffered PTSD from his experiences in Korea, judging from comments made by neighbours who were questioned about his character for entry into the DPD. In short, if any cop was expendable to other cops, it was Tippit. Greg, I am interested in the reference to Martha Moyer interviewing Leonard Jez and Jez saying the wallet belonged to Oswald. Do you have any references for this material?

I've been trying to figure out why this story of the planted wallet fails to pass my "smell" test, and I think I've figured out why. It's because the wrong wallet disappeared! If there was a mass plot to frame Oswald and cover up the existence of two wallets, involving mass perjury by the DPD, the right call would have been for them to accept the wallet found at the Tippit site and deny the one found on Oswald. After all, no one filmed them with a wallet at the theater. Furthermore, by denying the existence of the wallet at the Tippit site they would have been denying themselves a valuable piece of evidence, without which establishing Oswald's presence at the Tippit site would become much more difficult. Since the decision to hide the wallet at the Tippit site would have to have been made within hours, before Oswald's death, they would have been denying themselves a link in the chain with which they hoped to hang Oswald for the murder of a cop, in exchange for what? that Oswald had his wallet on him... how incriminating is that? If they'd have agreed on the story that the wallet was found at the site, on the other hand, they could have used Oswald's sneaking into the theater as supporting evidence, and EVERYONE would have bought it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pat, who said anything about a mass plot? The following has been established so far in this thread (at least to the satifaction of most involved in the discussion): 1. The wallet could not have belonged to Tippit. Do you accept that? Do you even accept yet that what is shown in the film is a wallet? 2. Not one of the five officers who escorted Oswald to City Hall mentioned anything about dual IDs in their earliest statements. Do you accept that this is highly unusual -- if indeed Oswald actually had dual ID on him? 3. Bentley (who was the one LATER specifically credited with finding the dual ID on Oswald in the squad car) was not called to give evidence before the WC, and the only officer who attested to the Hidell alias being found in this way had to be led in questioning to arrive at that damning statement. So why wasn't Bentley called? He supposedly not only found this evidence, but was also involved in the actual arrest. 3. Fritz did not question Oswald until the Saturday about the alleged Hidell alias. Do you accept that this was at the very least, curious - especially given that for all Fritz supposedly knew... there may have actually been a real "Hidell" out there who was either in league with Oswald, or had vital information about him? 4. Barrett has consistently maintained that wallet was Oswald's. Why do you cast aspersions at Hosty over Barrett's claim? I can now add that researcher, Martha Moyer, in the late '90s interviewed another cop present when the wallet was found - Leonard Jez. He confirmed to Martha that the wallet was Oswald's. Once it is accepted that Oswald did not have any ID on his person, other than his own (and I accept it on the basis that it is inconceivable that all of the cops in the car had simultaneous memory loss on the day they gave their statements, and equally inconceivable that they all decided it was not worth mentioning in those statements), you have to take the next step: where did the Hidell ID come from, if not from Oswald's arrest wallet? The logical place is the place where a wallet, said by an FBI agent and a Dallas cop to contain such ID, was found. As for Dallas cops wanting to avenge Tippit's murder by finding the REAL culprit/s -forget it. Ever wonder why Tippit was never promoted? If the shooter DID say "poor dumb cop", it may be because he knew him. Read his personnel files in the DPD records. It wasn't just an expression - it was (even if just by accident), an apt description. He was a loner, and not bright (among other evidence for this is that others had to write his police reports). Oh, and he possibly suffered PTSD from his experiences in Korea, judging from comments made by neighbours who were questioned about his character for entry into the DPD. In short, if any cop was expendable to other cops, it was Tippit.

I've been trying to figure out why this story of the planted wallet fails to pass my "smell" test, and I think I've figured out why. It's because the wrong wallet disappeared! If there was a mass plot to frame Oswald and cover up the existence of two wallets, involving mass perjury by the DPD, the right call would have been for them to accept the wallet found at the Tippit site and deny the one found on Oswald. After all, no one filmed them with a wallet at the theater. Furthermore, by denying the existence of the wallet at the Tippit site they would have been denying themselves a valuable piece of evidence, without which establishing Oswald's presence at the Tippit site would become much more difficult. Since the decision to hide the wallet at the Tippit site would have to have been made within hours, before Oswald's death, they would have been denying themselves a link in the chain with which they hoped to hang Oswald for the murder of a cop, in exchange for what? that Oswald had his wallet on him... how incriminating is that? If they'd have agreed on the story that the wallet was found at the site, on the other hand, they could have used Oswald's sneaking into the theater as supporting evidence, and EVERYONE would have bought it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pat, who said anything about a mass plot? The following has been established so far in this thread (at least to the satifaction of most involved in the discussion): 1. The wallet could not have belonged to Tippit. Do you accept that? Do you even accept yet that what is shown in the film is a wallet? 2. Not one of the five officers who escorted Oswald to City Hall mentioned anything about dual IDs in their earliest statements. Do you accept that this is highly unusual -- if indeed Oswald actually had dual ID on him? 3. Bentley (who was the one LATER specifically credited with finding the dual ID on Oswald in the squad car) was not called to give evidence before the WC, and the only officer who attested to the Hidell alias being found in this way had to be led in questioning to arrive at that damning statement. So why wasn't Bentley called? He supposedly not only found this evidence, but was also involved in the actual arrest. 3. Fritz did not question Oswald until the Saturday about the alleged Hidell alias. Do you accept that this was at the very least, curious - especially given that for all Fritz supposedly knew... there may have actually been a real "Hidell" out there who was either in league with Oswald, or had vital information about him? 4. Barrett has consistently maintained that wallet was Oswald's. Why do you cast aspersions at Hosty over Barrett's claim? I can now add that researcher, Martha Moyer, in the late '90s interviewed another cop present when the wallet was found - Leonard Jez. He confirmed to Martha that the wallet was Oswald's. Once it is accepted that Oswald did not have any ID on his person, other than his own (and I accept it on the basis that it is inconceivable that all of the cops in the car had simultaneous memory loss on the day they gave their statements, and equally inconceivable that they all decided it was not worth mentioning in those statements), you have to take the next step: where did the Hidell ID come from, if not from Oswald's arrest wallet? The logical place is the place where a wallet, said by an FBI agent and a Dallas cop to contain such ID, was found. As for Dallas cops wanting to avenge Tippit's murder by finding the REAL culprit/s -forget it. Ever wonder why Tippit was never promoted? If the shooter DID say "poor dumb cop", it may be because he knew him. Read his personnel files in the DPD records. It wasn't just an expression - it was (even if just by accident), an apt description. He was a loner, and not bright (among other evidence for this is that others had to write his police reports). Oh, and he possibly suffered PTSD from his experiences in Korea, judging from comments made by neighbours who were questioned about his character for entry into the DPD. In short, if any cop was expendable to other cops, it was Tippit.