Oswald's Wallet

[Jack White]

Jack, is it correct that Howard Hughes owned the theatre?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hughes BUILT the theater in the 30s. I think it

had changed ownership several times by the 60s.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

Greg wrote:

Interestingly, one CIA report states Saez was "capable of anything" -- which to me is strangely reminiscent of how one of Odio's visitors described Oswald to her.

Greg, do you have a copy of this CIA report by chance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, Tim. I don't. It is available from NARA, though. Should I be surprised you don't already have it?

Anyhow, I think this is the one:

Hit 1 of 1

AGENCY INFORMATION

AGENCY : CIA

RECORD NUMBER : 104-10021-10004

RECORDS SERIES : JFK

AGENCY FILE NUMBER : 201-289248

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

ORIGINATOR : CIA

FROM : CHIEF OF STATION, JMWAVE

TO : CHIEF, SPECIAL AFFAIRS STAFF

TITLE : ALLEGATIONS RE MIGUEL CASAS SAEZ - CUBAN IN DALLAS,

TEXAS.

DATE : 01/27/1964

PAGES : 4

DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

SUBJECTS : CASAS, MIGUEL S; ALLEGATIONS; ALLEGED PLOT; ASSAS.;

INVESTIGATION; CUBA ROLE

CLASSIFICATION : SECRET

RESTRICTIONS : 1B

CURRENT STATUS : RELEASED WITH DELETIONS

DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 01/13/1994

COMMENTS : OSW6:V1 1994.01.13.15:03:41:600028: ROUTING AND RECORD

SHEET IS ATTACHED

I mentioned him only in the context of a larger scenario which included the leaving of the wallet & ID at the Tippit site as part of a false trail. Suggest this offshoot from the main topic be curtailed unless you too, see the wallet as part of a larger plan somehow involving Saez.

[Tim Gratz]

Thanks, Greg. I do not have it but shall order it!

But I shall not "hijack" this thread.

Thanks again.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Greg wrote:

Interestingly, one CIA report states Saez was "capable of anything" -- which to me is strangely reminiscent of how one of Odio's visitors described Oswald to her.

Greg, do you have a copy of this CIA report by chance?

Tim, do you mean to tell us that you've once again been making specific allegations about this man without first procuring the evidence upon which those suspicions were first raised?  You mean that, once again, you've been pawning off second hand codswollop without acquainting yourself with the only reports that might indicate whether or not it is codswollop?  For shame, ex-counsellor!

This is a replay of your insistence that Veciana had testified to something, and only thereafter seeking that testimony.  Which, as it turned out, wasn't testimony or a deposition or anything else sworn to under oath.  It was an aside comment made during field interviews with a staffer, whose notes ended up in the "Miscellaneous" recepticle next to the garbage bin.  Where it rightly belonged.

You simply must stop dropping Russo footnotes into your posts as though they are factual, and inferring too much from too little, without first acquainting yourself with the actual documents to which those footnotes refer.  You repeatedly reverse the accepted process for sleuthing - facts first, conclusions drawn from those facts second - and can only leave yourself open to much embarrassment when it turns out that your sources - Russo, et al - are themselves doing no more than regurgitating uncritically accepted CIA takeouts of no merit.

You have repeatedly assailed Sprague and others for making assertions based on gossip and innuendo, and for making them without providing the basis for the conclusions drawn.  Yet this is precisely the same sin committed by you, here, on a daily basis.  Please do reflect on these shortcomings, because you reveal yourself as a dabbler and dilettante each time you do so. 

If others on this Forum treat you as a joke, it is not because they are all "leftists" or "intolerant of opposing views," as you've repeatedly suggested, thereby making them responsible for your own failures.  If you wish to be taken seriously, then demonstrate a serious methodology and provide something - anything - worthy of serious consideration.  Surely, that's not too much to ask of you when your own reputation and self-image are at stake.

A good place to start might be the long-promised, but thus-far undelivered, news accounts of the Castro plot to blow up NYC.  You made that promise in, what? April?  It's now August....

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Ever heard of a concept called "island time"?

But I agree I do need to follow up on that.

And I gues it is trueI give more credence to Russo and Trento, whose books are refeenced, than to Mr. Sprague.

If I find out either one erred, I undertake to let you all know.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Ever heard of a concept called "island time"?

Ever heard of "promise made, promise kept?"

But I agree I do need to follow up on that.

A positively spiffing thought, old chap.

And I gues it is trueI give more credence to Russo and Trento, whose books are refeenced, than to Mr. Sprague.

There are two obvious reasons why this is true.  First, Russo and Trento point to Havana and Moscow as the culprits, which you find far preferable to anyone in Washington being involved.  Second, neither Russo nor Trento mention you in an unflattering light.

If I find out either one erred, I undertake to let you all know.

How will you ever "find out" whether Russo, Trento, et al, have "erred" if you never bother to acquaint yourself with the documentary evidence that they each cite, but that neither of them provide to the reader?  Your uncritical acceptance of that which pleases you and bolsters your pathological obsession with Castro - without even considering opposing evidence - is your Achilles heel. 

I know it seems that I am constantly lecturing you, Tim.  Please accept that it is not based upon my desire to dismiss what you have to say.  On the contrary, the only way for me to debate what you have to offer is for you to actually offer something.  If all you can do is cite footnotes from books, without actually knowing for yourself what the footnotes refer to, then you offer nothing more than the books themselves have already done.  Hence, you make no personal contribution whatsoever.  [And you should; you write well and have obvious passion.  Harness those talents and give us something to sink our teeth into, to advance our understanding of the case.  Disagreeing with your hypothesis doesn't blind me to your positive attributes; please enhance those attributes and put them to good use.] 

I look forward to a rousing debate of the facts with you.  In order to do so, however, you must first acquaint yourself with those facts.  If Greg Parker in Australia can access the CIA document you only now seek - something that might actually bolster your case - how is it that you cannot?  Perhaps a bit less time posting half-baked stuff on several Internet forums and a bit more time seeking the actual evidence required to draw sustainable conclusions would help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Greg Parker]

I've read accounts that Oswald's wallet, with the Hidell ID card, was found at the Tippitt murder site; and I've seen accounts that state that Oswald had his wallet on his person when arrested in the Texas Theater.

So...where was the wallet found?  At 10th and Patton, or in Oswald's possession?

Or were two wallets actually found, and the matter intentionally made confusing so as to make investigation all the more difficult?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark,

I meant to mention in a previous post... according the WC, he had two wallets -- the one he was arrested with, and the one mentioned here from the final report:

most of the Oswalds' personal possessions. The following morning Oswald left while his wife was still in bed feeding the baby. She did not see him leave the house, nor did Ruth Paine. On the dresser in their room he left his wedding ring which he had never done before. His wallet containing $170 was left intact in a dresser-drawer.

The one at the Tippit site was never mentioned anywhere by anyone in the 26 volumes as far as I can tell.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I've read accounts that Oswald's wallet, with the Hidell ID card, was found at the Tippitt murder site; and I've seen accounts that state that Oswald had his wallet on his person when arrested in the Texas Theater.

So...where was the wallet found?  At 10th and Patton, or in Oswald's possession?

Or were two wallets actually found, and the matter intentionally made confusing so as to make investigation all the more difficult?

Mark:

The following is my entirely hypothetical reading of the known facts regarding the wallet issue, a few points of which have already been commented upon by my esteemed colleague Greg Parker.

On the day of the event, none of the DPD officials evidenced the slightest confusion over who the arrested suspect was.  In each case, he was referred to as "Oswald" and those DPD personnel who spoke to the media used that name exclusively, giving no reason to suspect he had any "Hidell" ID upon his person when arrested.

The notes taken by Fritz - notes that he claimed to the WC that he hadn't ever taken, but which were disclosed after his death - similarly express no questions whatsoever about "Hidell" on the day of the event.

Surely, the foregoing is impossible if Oswald did indeed have falsified "Hidell" ID in his wallet when arrested.

My own hypothesis is that the wallet discovered at the Tippitt crime scene did contain both some "Oswald" ID, and some patently bogus "Hidell" ID.  In particular, one notes that the military card contained in that wallet has upon it a photograph of Oswald.  Now, never having served in the US military in the 1950s, I cannot state with certainty that such a card did not usually contain a photo of its bearer.  However, having seen the identical 1960s military cards shown to me by US deserters and AWOLs in Canada, I can assure you that not one of them contained such a photo of the bearer.  More to the point, having plumbed this issue even further with those who served in the US military in the 1950s, they have asserted - to a man - that such cards never had their photos affixed.  [if this is incorrect, I welcome a correction - preferably with a posted example of such a card with a photo - from those who can provide it.]

Were Oswald to have falsified such a card himself as bogus ID for any reasonable anticipated purpose, it would have been a self-defeating exercise.  Anyone familiar with such military ID would have known immediately that it was a counterfeit card.

This leads us to question why Oswald would fabricate such a card if it served no possible legitimate purpose. 

We must similarly question why such a card would be in Oswald's pocket when he was arrested, but remain undisclosed by the DPD personnel who found it there on that occasion.  It seems entirely incongruous that a man would order a weapon through the mails under a false name - presumably to distance himself from ownership of the weapon - yet have that weapon shipped to his own PO box, and then have on his person false ID in the alias name under which he purchased the weapon, on the very day that he intended to use it to kill the President.  Again, this is a self-defeating exercise.

However, if we posit that the "Hidell" military card bearing Oswald's photo was in the wallet left at the Tippitt crime scene, a rather simple hypothesis suggests itself.  Let us assume that rather than be arrested, Oswald simply vanished.  In his absence - and, obviously, the absence of his real wallet - police discovered at the Tippitt murder scene a wallet that contained ID in the names of both Oswald and "Hidell."  Both the name "Oswald" and the photo on the phony "Hidell" military card would almost immediately be tracked back to an employee of the TSBD, the assassination crime scene, a man who had simply vanished soon after the assassination, as though he had fled.

Upon tracing the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD back to Klein's in Chicago, and from there to a "Hidell" using Oswald's PO box, the circle would be complete.  The assassin was a man who worked at the TSBD named "Lee Harvey Oswald," but who had ordered the rifle under the name "Hidell."  The assassin was accommodating enough to the police to thoughtfully leave behind a wallet that all but solved the case for them.  What's more, when police later searched the home at which his wife lived in Irving, the assassin had thoughtfully left behind photos of himself posing with both murder weapons, and a fistful of Commie propaganda.

[Parenthetically, the murder of Tippitt would also suggest several important details: that Oswald killed a Dallas cop in making his hasty escape; that this murder demonstrated his predisposition toward violence, making his culpability in the President's murder easier to accept; and that an armed and dangerous man was still at large.  But where did he go?]

However, rather than simply vanish and leave behind this trail of evidence, Oswald was instead arrested.  Captain Fritz was, by all accounts, a rather canny old coot, and when confronted with two wallets, knew that something highly suspicious was being played out.  The Tippitt crime scene wallet was placed in Fritz's desk drawer, and was not part of the evidence against Oswald sent that night to the FBI in Washington.  Instead, it remained in his desk.  Even after FBI had traced the rifle back to a "Hidell" using Oswald's PO box, the contents of the Tippitt crime scene wallet did not make their way into the public record.

However, once Oswald was killed in DPD custody, and it became imperative to demonstrate that Jack Ruby had killed a guilty assassin, and not an innocent bystander, the "Hidell" ID began its covert journey from the Tippitt crime scene wallet into the "Oswald" wallet, thus sealing his fate as the assassin.

Greg Parker, a sterling researcher with whom I've discussed this issue over the years in order to put the pieces together, has alluded to another component of what I believe was the plan.  Had Oswald simply vanished, which I contend was the conspirators' original game plan, then tracing the departure of a light plane from the Dallas Redbird airport to its eventual destination in Mexico City [true or not], and claiming that a single passenger had walked across the tarmac to a Havana-bound Cubana Airlines flight [true or not], would have placed the assassin heading "home" to the safety of those who had sponsored his murder of the President. 

[The game plan that I attribute to the conspirators also involved the pre-planned "subsequent" discovery of "Oswald" luggage at the Mexico City airport, a detail with which CIA was well familiar according to an obscure footnote in Dick Russell's original edition of "TMWKTM."  Obviously, when Oswald was arrested rather than simply vanishing, that luggage had to be scuttled, rather than "discovered."  Why would CIA refrain from disclosing that detail, if not to help eliminate evidence of a plot to frame Oswald?  What can be said of a government agency that prefers to protect the conspirators rather than prosecute them?]

For this purpose of implicating Castro, the conspirators could not have picked a more fitting candidate.  The assassin had defected to Moscow in years gone by; he had militated publicly on Castro's behalf in his FPCC activities only four months earlier; he had sought travel permits from both the Cuban and Soviet consular staff in Mexico City only a few months earlier.  In the absence of the actual assassin in Dallas, the inescapable conclusion would be that a foreign-inspired Communist plot - the very thing alleged by Dallas assistant DA Bill Alexander in his original bill of particulars against Oswald - had used this Oswald chap to effect the murder of the President.

Obviously, for the above hypothesis to prove true, one must posit several corollary facts.  Whomever the conspirators were who chose Oswald, they must have known about his ownership of the weapon, or influenced his decision to purchase it under an assumed name.  [One notes that the postal receipt of the rifle's delivery disappeared, in contravention of USPS protocols.]  Were Oswald actually innocent of the crime for which he was being framed, they would have to place that rifle at the crime scene.  [One notes the presence of other rifles in the TSBD on the day prior to the assassination.  Was it so well hidden to preclude it being discovered before the assassination?]  And, presumably, they would have to arrange for Oswald's planned disappearance.  [One notes the observation by housekeeper Earlene Roberts that a police car - one not accounted for in the official DPD radio transcripts - stopped in front of the Beckley boarding house during the few minutes that Oswald was there, arming himself, and honked the horn, as if to signal somebody within the house.]

Obviously, Oswald's arrest rather than disappearnce threw a serious curveball into the hypothetical plans outlined above.  It suddenly became necessary to improvise a number of things, including Oswald's own murder.  [One notes that Jack Ruby began habituating the DPD HQ not long after Oswald's arrest.]  With Oswald's own murder, it seems that both FBI and DPD had their own reasons for contributing to the removal of certain evidence [Tippit crime scene wallet, which would have been completely inexplicable otherwise]; the surreptitious transfer of certain evidence [the "Hidell" contents of the Tippitt crime scene wallet into the "Oswald" wallet, well after the fact]; and the fabrication of other so-called "evidence" [the placement by DPD of an Oswald print upon the rifle well after FBI had already checked the weapon and determined it bore no such print, and that DPD hadn't even dusted that portion of the weapon for prints.]           

While I cannot claim that the foregoing is an airtight hypothesis, it does include all the key evidentiary elements, reconciles otherwise conflicting or contradictory details, and incorporates into a broader scenario what I think have been disregarded as otherwise unrelated events.

Make of it what you will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[JL Allen]

Marina testified: "Lee had many wallets. He liked to leave them around town and hoped that people would find them and contact us and become our friends."

... not.

[Mark Knight]

Robert and Greg--as well as Jack--thank you for the information you've offered.

I fail to see the value of Mr. Gratz bringing his sideshow to this thread, as Hughes' prior ownership of the Texas Theater has no bearing whatsoever on the question of Oswald and multiple wallets. I will henceforth ignore that intrusion on what has otherwise been an intelligent discussion.

I have questioned the multiple wallets in my mind for some time...and due to the overall inconsistencies in Marina's statements, I tend to discount nearly anything she ever said on the record. Marina seemed to be telling the FBI what they wanted to hear, the WC what they wanted to hear....and nobody the absolute truth, in my estimation.

So Ozzie left his wallet on the dresser at the Paine house ["the house of Paine"?]; then he dropped it at the Tippitt murder scene, he left one in his discarded jacket...and he still had one on his person when he was arrested at the Texas Theater...does that about cover it?

The existence of all these wallets doesn't exactly point to a finding of "no conspiracy," as I see it. The only way it would make sense--other than the scenario that Greg and Robert cite--would be if Ozzie was the lone assassin, and if the assassination was meant as a political statement, and he wanted to be caught...but that would make sense ONLY if Oswald had immediately taken credit for the killing and announced his political agenda. In light of Oswald's steadfast denials that he had killed anyone, the propaganda value evaporates as quickly as the logic of Oswald being the source of the multiple wallets.

[Robert Newell]

I've read accounts that Oswald's wallet, with the Hidell ID card, was found at the Tippitt murder site; and I've seen accounts that state that Oswald had his wallet on his person when arrested in the Texas Theater.

So...where was the wallet found?  At 10th and Patton, or in Oswald's possession?

Or were two wallets actually found, and the matter intentionally made confusing so as to make investigation all the more difficult?

Mark:

The following is my entirely hypothetical reading of the known facts regarding the wallet issue, a few points of which have already been commented upon by my esteemed colleague Greg Parker.

On the day of the event, none of the DPD officials evidenced the slightest confusion over who the arrested suspect was.  In each case, he was referred to as "Oswald" and those DPD personnel who spoke to the media used that name exclusively, giving no reason to suspect he had any "Hidell" ID upon his person when arrested.

The notes taken by Fritz - notes that he claimed to the WC that he hadn't ever taken, but which were disclosed after his death - similarly express no questions whatsoever about "Hidell" on the day of the event.

Surely, the foregoing is impossible if Oswald did indeed have falsified "Hidell" ID in his wallet when arrested.

My own hypothesis is that the wallet discovered at the Tippitt crime scene did contain both some "Oswald" ID, and some patently bogus "Hidell" ID.  In particular, one notes that the military card contained in that wallet has upon it a photograph of Oswald.  Now, never having served in the US military in the 1950s, I cannot state with certainty that such a card did not usually contain a photo of its bearer.  However, having seen the identical 1960s military cards shown to me by US deserters and AWOLs in Canada, I can assure you that not one of them contained such a photo of the bearer.  More to the point, having plumbed this issue even further with those who served in the US military in the 1950s, they have asserted - to a man - that such cards never had their photos affixed.  [if this is incorrect, I welcome a correction - preferably with a posted example of such a card with a photo - from those who can provide it.]

Were Oswald to have falsified such a card himself as bogus ID for any reasonable anticipated purpose, it would have been a self-defeating exercise.  Anyone familiar with such military ID would have known immediately that it was a counterfeit card.

This leads us to question why Oswald would fabricate such a card if it served no possible legitimate purpose. 

We must similarly question why such a card would be in Oswald's pocket when he was arrested, but remain undisclosed by the DPD personnel who found it there on that occasion.  It seems entirely incongruous that a man would order a weapon through the mails under a false name - presumably to distance himself from ownership of the weapon - yet have that weapon shipped to his own PO box, and then have on his person false ID in the alias name under which he purchased the weapon, on the very day that he intended to use it to kill the President.  Again, this is a self-defeating exercise.

However, if we posit that the "Hidell" military card bearing Oswald's photo was in the wallet left at the Tippitt crime scene, a rather simple hypothesis suggests itself.  Let us assume that rather than be arrested, Oswald simply vanished.  In his absence - and, obviously, the absence of his real wallet - police discovered at the Tippitt murder scene a wallet that contained ID in the names of both Oswald and "Hidell."  Both the name "Oswald" and the photo on the phony "Hidell" military card would almost immediately be tracked back to an employee of the TSBD, the assassination crime scene, a man who had simply vanished soon after the assassination, as though he had fled.

Upon tracing the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD back to Klein's in Chicago, and from there to a "Hidell" using Oswald's PO box, the circle would be complete.  The assassin was a man who worked at the TSBD named "Lee Harvey Oswald," but who had ordered the rifle under the name "Hidell."  The assassin was accommodating enough to the police to thoughtfully leave behind a wallet that all but solved the case for them.  What's more, when police later searched the home at which his wife lived in Irving, the assassin had thoughtfully left behind photos of himself posing with both murder weapons, and a fistful of Commie propaganda.

[Parenthetically, the murder of Tippitt would also suggest several important details: that Oswald killed a Dallas cop in making his hasty escape; that this murder demonstrated his predisposition toward violence, making his culpability in the President's murder easier to accept; and that an armed and dangerous man was still at large.  But where did he go?]

However, rather than simply vanish and leave behind this trail of evidence, Oswald was instead arrested.  Captain Fritz was, by all accounts, a rather canny old coot, and when confronted with two wallets, knew that something highly suspicious was being played out.  The Tippitt crime scene wallet was placed in Fritz's desk drawer, and was not part of the evidence against Oswald sent that night to the FBI in Washington.  Instead, it remained in his desk.  Even after FBI had traced the rifle back to a "Hidell" using Oswald's PO box, the contents of the Tippitt crime scene wallet did not make their way into the public record.

However, once Oswald was killed in DPD custody, and it became imperative to demonstrate that Jack Ruby had killed a guilty assassin, and not an innocent bystander, the "Hidell" ID began its covert journey from the Tippitt crime scene wallet into the "Oswald" wallet, thus sealing his fate as the assassin.

Greg Parker, a sterling researcher with whom I've discussed this issue over the years in order to put the pieces together, has alluded to another component of what I believe was the plan.  Had Oswald simply vanished, which I contend was the conspirators' original game plan, then tracing the departure of a light plane from the Dallas Redbird airport to its eventual destination in Mexico City [true or not], and claiming that a single passenger had walked across the tarmac to a Havana-bound Cubana Airlines flight [true or not], would have placed the assassin heading "home" to the safety of those who had sponsored his murder of the President. 

[The game plan that I attribute to the conspirators also involved the pre-planned "subsequent" discovery of "Oswald" luggage at the Mexico City airport, a detail with which CIA was well familiar according to an obscure footnote in Dick Russell's original edition of "TMWKTM."  Obviously, when Oswald was arrested rather than simply vanishing, that luggage had to be scuttled, rather than "discovered."  Why would CIA refrain from disclosing that detail, if not to help eliminate evidence of a plot to frame Oswald?  What can be said of a government agency that prefers to protect the conspirators rather than prosecute them?]

For this purpose of implicating Castro, the conspirators could not have picked a more fitting candidate.  The assassin had defected to Moscow in years gone by; he had militated publicly on Castro's behalf in his FPCC activities only four months earlier; he had sought travel permits from both the Cuban and Soviet consular staff in Mexico City only a few months earlier.  In the absence of the actual assassin in Dallas, the inescapable conclusion would be that a foreign-inspired Communist plot - the very thing alleged by Dallas assistant DA Bill Alexander in his original bill of particulars against Oswald - had used this Oswald chap to effect the murder of the President.

Obviously, for the above hypothesis to prove true, one must posit several corollary facts.  Whomever the conspirators were who chose Oswald, they must have known about his ownership of the weapon, or influenced his decision to purchase it under an assumed name.  [One notes that the postal receipt of the rifle's delivery disappeared, in contravention of USPS protocols.]  Were Oswald actually innocent of the crime for which he was being framed, they would have to place that rifle at the crime scene.  [One notes the presence of other rifles in the TSBD on the day prior to the assassination.  Was it so well hidden to preclude it being discovered before the assassination?]  And, presumably, they would have to arrange for Oswald's planned disappearance.  [One notes the observation by housekeeper Earlene Roberts that a police car - one not accounted for in the official DPD radio transcripts - stopped in front of the Beckley boarding house during the few minutes that Oswald was there, arming himself, and honked the horn, as if to signal somebody within the house.]

Obviously, Oswald's arrest rather than disappearnce threw a serious curveball into the hypothetical plans outlined above.  It suddenly became necessary to improvise a number of things, including Oswald's own murder.  [One notes that Jack Ruby began habituating the DPD HQ not long after Oswald's arrest.]  With Oswald's own murder, it seems that both FBI and DPD had their own reasons for contributing to the removal of certain evidence [Tippit crime scene wallet, which would have been completely inexplicable otherwise]; the surreptitious transfer of certain evidence [the "Hidell" contents of the Tippitt crime scene wallet into the "Oswald" wallet, well after the fact]; and the fabrication of other so-called "evidence" [the placement by DPD of an Oswald print upon the rifle well after FBI had already checked the weapon and determined it bore no such print, and that DPD hadn't even dusted that portion of the weapon for prints.]            

While I cannot claim that the foregoing is an airtight hypothesis, it does include all the key evidentiary elements, reconciles otherwise conflicting or contradictory details, and incorporates into a broader scenario what I think have been disregarded as otherwise unrelated events.

Make of it what you will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi all...First post, so I hope I'm doing this right! This topic concerning the wallets has interested me for a while now and it is great to have a forum to gain the information all of you are sharing. The thoughts about the wallets are about as direct evidence or manipulation of the evidence one can find. I must admit that I am intrigued with Fritz and the idea of the transfer of Hiddel ID to the Oswald arrest wallet. I thought that Robert's post hit upon a scenerio that has always made sense to me.

Just to add a thought that I hope is not off topic, I think it helps explain that the conspiritors were not really concerned about the need of a shot from the front. As long as Oswald was framed he soldified the 'commies did it' idea. It may have even have been nice in their minds to have the American public think that another assassin was on the beach in Havana sipping palm wine."Let's go git em'" IMO the lone nut theroy was more of the coverup and not as much concern to the shooting aspect of the assassination. Thanks for the great posts and I hope I get the hang of this!.....Robert

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Hi all...First post, so I hope I'm doing this right! This topic concerning the wallets has interested me for a while now and it is great to have a forum to gain the information all of you are sharing. The thoughts about the wallets are about as direct evidence or manipulation of the evidence one can find. I must admit that I am intrigued with Fritz and the idea of the transfer of Hiddel ID to the Oswald arrest wallet. I thought that Robert's post hit upon a scenerio that has always made sense to me.

Just to add a thought that I hope is not off topic, I think it helps explain that the conspiritors were not really concerned about the need of a shot from the front. As long as Oswald was framed he soldified the 'commies did it' idea. It may have even have been nice in their minds to have the American public think that another assassin was on the beach in Havana sipping palm wine."Let's go git em'" IMO the lone nut theroy was more of the coverup and not as much concern to the shooting aspect of the assassination. Thanks for the great posts and I hope I get the hang of this!.....Robert

You've got the hang of it already, Robert.  You raise an important point in your second paragraph: that the plans of the conspirators and the response of the authorities may have been diametrically opposed.

The conspirators clearly got away with their first intended goal, the elimination of the President, without being caught or even identified.  It is human nature for us to assume that since this effort went swimmingly well, that they had achieved their singular aim.

However, the charade in which Oswald participated prior to the assasssination - the superficial activism on behalf of FPCC and the provocation that took place in Mexico City in Sept./Oct. '63 [where LHO was likely impersonated on at least one occasion, if not more] - and the suspiciously non-credible "evidence" of Cuban sponsorship for the assassination that originated exclusively with CIA sources and proxies, suggests that a secondary goal was to implicate Castro as the guilty party and trigger a military response by US forces.  That part of their ambitions didn't go so well.  With the arrest of Oswald, those plans went awry.  I suggest that we witnessed something we can each observe in our own daily lives, the unintended consequence.

In a similar vein, it is convenient to posit that the conspirators may have wished to leave the impression that there was only a single shooter.  But, why?  To them, it made no difference if it was a single Communist-sponsored shooter, or a number of them.  In fact, they may have preferred to have left evidence of several persons shooting, as it gave their Commie conspiracy design greater weight.   

However, to each and every government agency and law enforcement branch, such a wider conspiracy was anathema, as it was evidence that each such agency and law enforcement branch had failed miserably in their jobs.  It was the Secret Service's role to protect the President, in which it failed.  So long as it was the work of a single assassin, SS honchos could plausibly claim that it was impossible to identify and prevent a single person from committing such an act.  Not so with a broader conspiracy. 

This goes for Dallas Police, CIA, FBI, and every other governmental authority tasked with monitoring and neutralising such "subversive" elements and potential "threats."  Hence, had the shooters ditched a 7.65 Mauser along with a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, those same agencies had a strong vested interest in making that second weapon disappear.  Otherwise, they would have to explain how it came to pass that a group of individuals - the very persons they were supposed to keep watch over - could collude to kill the President without coming to the attention of the agencies responsible for preventing just such an event.  Just as an example, can anyone imagine arch Commie-hunter JE Hoover trying to explain to a hostile audience how it came to pass that his bureau, with its vast resources and infiltrators in every subversive organization known to mankind, had failed to detect this threat to the President's well-being?  One supposes that Hoover would not relish such a necessity.

Consequently, while one cannot indict any of the above agencies [with the possible exception of CIA] for having foreknowledge of the event itself, each agency's own deficiencies may have spurred them to tamper with the evidence of conspiracy, after the fact, to minimize their own culpability.  It's not a pretty picture, but human nature being what it is, self-preservation and covering one's posterior is a natural human response, and must be factored into the equation.  If this transpired, the authorities tasked with solving the crime actually colluded to eliminate evidence that might have aided us all in the solution of that crime.  If the conspirators intended to leave behind evidence of a conspiracy [and why not?], an unintended consequence pre-empted their ambitions.  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Jim Root]

All

I took a moment to reread Marina Oswald's testimony in light of some of the comments made here. It seems possible that her understanding of the word "wallet" may have been different than what we would understand the word to mean.

For example, I am a public official. I have a badge that is issued to me complete with identification etc. that can be used for official business. For the most part that "wallet" is kept at home and seldom sees daylight. I also transact buisness for an organization that I am involved with as well as a family corporation. For each of these entities I use a "wallet" that can be used to transport the days receipts or other pertinent information that I would need when dealing in the necessary day to day transactions.

I guess you could say that I have many "wallets."

Since it is my belief that Oswald had been "used" as an intelligence asset by (let me suggest at this time for arguments sake) the CIA or the KGB or you fill in the blank, it would seem logical, to me at least, that Oswald might want to "create," as the Warren Commission suggests, some false identities that he would use, as the Warren Commission suggests upon various occassions as circumstances would dictate.

Forget innocence or guilt in the assassination of JFK. I would suggest that multiple identites (and perhaps "wallets") seem to fit the character of Oswald. Lee Harvey Oswald was a man who had every reason to believe that his movements were being monitored. In fact, we know that his movements were being monitored!

On another note it seems that Oswald was capable of moving (knowingly) around in Mexico on more that one occassion. We know that he visited Mexico shortly before he defected to the Soviet Union (and displayed a knowledge that went beyound the first time traveler) and once shortly before the assassination of JFK (another visit shrouded in mystery).

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

Jim Root

[Pat Speer]

Admittedly, I haven't studied this element of the case, but I seem to remember a DPD officer (was it Hill?) testifying that he opened Oswald's wallet in the car and asked Oswald who Hiddell was, and Oswald told him "you find out." Sorry I don't have more time in which to find the exact testimony, but some of the posts here seem to be of the mind that no one mentioned Hiddell until sometime afterwards, when at least one cop testified he talked to Oswald about Hiddell almost immediately. As for the wallet found at the Tippit site, I think I've read where this story only surfaced years afterwards, based upon the supposed words of one cop. What evidence is there supporting that such a wallet was actually found?

[Nic Martin]

Admittedly, I haven't studied this element of the case, but I seem to remember a DPD officer (was it Hill?) testifying that he opened Oswald's wallet in the car and asked Oswald who Hiddell was, and Oswald told him "you find out." Sorry I don't have more time in which to find the exact testimony, but some of the posts here seem to be of the mind that no one mentioned Hiddell until sometime afterwards, when at least one cop testified he talked to Oswald about Hiddell almost immediately.  As for the wallet found at the Tippit site, I think I've read where this story only surfaced years afterwards, based upon the supposed words of one cop.  What evidence is there supporting that such a wallet was actually found?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Other than the pictures on the first page of this topic of two officers holding a wallet at the Tippit scene?