Oswald's Wallet

[John Dolva]

Greg,

the testimony suggests Oswald did not swing a punch until McDonald put his hand on Oswald's waist

I have always taken it on faith that during his arrest at the Texas Theater, Lee Harvey Oswald took out his gun and attempted to shoot arresting Officer M.N. McDonald. This is based on accounts of an audible "snap" that was heard. Later, we read accounts that the only reason Oswald's attempted murder of McDonald didn't succeed because of a bent primer or a "misfire"

I would like to contend that perhaps the "snap" that was heard was either the sound of something else, or was accidently caused by the officers seeing the gun and immediately reacting to take it away from Oswald and that Oswald did not attempt to shoot Officer McDonald.

I say this for the following three reasons:

1)

Here are the after action reports of the arresting officers filed with Police Chief Curry on Decembers 2 - 5, 1963.

They can be found in the Dallas Police Archives, Box 2, Folder# 7

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box2.htm

E.L. Cunningham: "When I reached the seating area on the main floor, several officers were in the process of disarming and handcuffing the suspect. ...I did not see anything that indicated that any more force was used than was absolutely necessary to effect the arrest".

Paul Bentley: "Just as I entered the lower floor, I saw Patrolman McDonald fighting with this suspect. I saw this suspect pull a pistol from his shirt, so I went to Patrolman McDonald's aid immediately"

Bob Carroll: "When I arrived at the lower floor, Lee Harvey Oswald was resisting vigorously"...At this time I observed a pistol with the muzzle pointed in my direction. I grabbed the pistol and stuck it in my belt..."

Ray Hawkins: "The subject stood up and as Officer McDonald started to search him, he struck Officer McDonald in the face. The subject and Officer McDonald began to fight and both fell down in the seats. Officer Walker and I ran toward the subject and grabbed him by his left arm. The subject had reached in his belt for a gun and Officer McDonald was holding his right hand with the gun in it".

T.A. Hutson: "As I entered the row of seats behind the suspect he jumped up and hit Officer McDonald in the face with his fist, Officer McDonald was in the seat next to the one in which the suspect was originally sitting, and the suspect was up out of his seat struggling with Officer McDonald. I reached over the back of the seats and placed my right arm around the suspect's neck and pulled him up on back of the seat. Officer C.T. WAlker came up and was struggling with the suspect's left hand, and as Officer McDonald struggled with with the suspect's right hand, he moved it to his waist and drew a pistol and as Officer McDonald tried to disarm the suspect, I heard the pistol snap".

K.E. Lyon: "Enroute to the City Hall, Oswald refused to answer all questions. and he kept repeating, "Why am I being arrested? I know I was carrying a gun, but why else am I being arrested"?

M.N. McDonald: "When I got within a foot of him, I told the suspect to get to his feet. He stood up immediately, bringing his hands up about shoulder high and saying, "Well it's over now". I was reaching for his waist and he struck me on the nose with his left hand. With his right hand, he reached for his waist and both our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt. We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol. ... I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip I heard the snap of the hammer and the pistol crossed over my left cheek, causing a four inch scratch".

As you can see from reading these reports, at no time in the first 10 to 12 days following the assassination, did any of the arresting officers on the scene claim that Oswald tried to shoot M.N. McDonald. If the pistol did go off and cause a "snap" of the hammer falling into place, it was because McDonald jerked it out of Oswald's pants.

2)

When questioned by Captain Fritz on the afternoon of November 22nd, Fritz did not accuse Oswald of trying to shoot Officer McDonald.

Fritz (4H214)

Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he killed Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. Sir?

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he shot Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. Oh, yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he say.

Mr. FRITZ. He denied it---that he did not. The only thing he said he had done wrong, "The only law I violated was in the show; I hit the officer in the show; he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it." He said, "That is the only law I violated." He said, "That is the only thing I have done wrong."

3)

If Oswald had attempted to shoot Officer McDonald, why were no charges of attempted murder filed as they were in the case of Governor Connally?

I believe that the account of Oswald trying to shoot McDonald was invented after the fact.

Steve Thomas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is what Harry D. Holmes (Dealey Plaza Post Office Postal Inspector, FBI informant "Dallas T7") had to say about Oswalds last interview which he prolonged while Ruby made his way to the basement :

“Well, who is that man?” as Oswald pointed to me. Fritz told him that I was a postal inspector and that I might have a question to ask in regard to post office matters. Oswald didn’t have a problem with that and responded, “Okay.” The FBI had interrogated his wife two or three times, and it really needled him and just set him off to the point that he had no use for the FBI. It was the FBI that wouldn’t tell the Secret Service or anybody else that he should have been watched, and they really were criticized over it. But anyway, Oswald wouldn’t talk until he was assured that there wasn’t an FBI man in the room. He just didn’t want anything to do with the FBI.

This was the only time that I ever saw Oswald. To me he looked just like a normal person. You read stories about how you can look in their eyes and see this or that, but I didn’t see anything different about him. Personally, I thought that he was very intelligent. He was very positive and opinionated about what he said and never minced words. His answers were either yes or no, and he had an excellent memory. He answered all the questions put to him either truthfully or otherwise, but I knew that he was lying on certain questions because of the evidence that we had.

When he came into the room, he was just matter of fact; he didn’t know why he was there. He said, “I presume I’m here because I resisted arrest and tried to shoot a policeman there in that theater. All I know is that I was in a picture show out there on Jefferson and the police came in after me. I had my pistol on me and took it out to defend myself when it didn’t fire. I wasn’t successful because the hammer caught on the web of the guy’s hand. If it had fired, he’d be another dead policeman. I didn’t kill anybody!” He wouldn’t even admit to killing Tippit, and he certainly denied any connection with the President. He didn’t have any reason for it."

Edited August 9, 2005 by John Dolva

[Steve Thomas]

John,

This is what Harry D. Holmes had to say about the interview he was part of before Oswald was shot.

      When he came into the room, he was just matter of fact; he didn’t know why he was there. He said, “I presume I’m here because I resisted arrest and tried to shoot a policeman there in that theater.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe this exchange. Oswald had already been arraigned for the murder of Tippit at 7:30 on Friday night and the murder of JFK in the wee hours of Saurday morning.

For him to walk into an interrogation room at 10:00 or so on Sunday morning and say, "I don't know why I am here..." just stretches credulity.

Steve thomas

[John Dolva]

Steve, I agree, I don't believe it either. There's much of what Harry had to say I don't believe.

[Greg Parker]

Having studied the sound premises and arguments which are set forth by Mr. Dunne in post #116 and Mr. Speer in post #115, whom both have in the past had theories with which I am usually in at least somewhat agreement, I feel that in this instance they are overcomplicating an area that may, in fact, be much more simple and basic, and not neccessarily that crucial to the determination of who killed JFK.

Charles, it merely has the appearance of over-complication. There was only one plan. Ad-libbing became necessary when Oswald got himself arrested (imo).

I am still more comfortable with the very simple logic which I set forth in post #113, though the result of knowing who killed officer Tippit does not neccessarily lead us closer to the solution of WHAT killed JFK.

I think trying to find the what/who is a distraction with the added danger of turning into a parlour game. What I want to see as an aim is forcing a first ever unfettered inquiry. Whilst many here see no point in proving a conspiracy due to the fact that they see that question as long settled - I personally do not see it as settled until it written into history that way.  And it never will be without a further inquiry. What is needed is a solid case put forward that Oswald could NOT have been the 6th floor sniper, and that he did have ties to particular agencies and/or subcommittees.  Ruby's life and various connections also need laying out in full star-spangled glory. Straying too far from Oswald and Ruby is fine -- if your aim is merely background, precedence, context or analogous circumstances, or you are merely trying to satisfy yourself as to whodunit.

I have found repeatedly that plans, less complicated and involving fewer participants,  have a much higher success ratio than those involving larger numbers of people with many layered plans and inevitably a myriad of contingency plans. The more complicated the plan, the more potential errors.

I don't think they had a particularly complex plan, let alone any contingency plans. That's why so much of the evidence looks so suspect, and why some had to altered, lost, destroyed.  The possiblity of Oswald being taken in just wasn't on the radar.

The more persons involved, the more voices that may, even inadvertantly, be heard. We must also keep in mind that in operations where many operators are involved, some very critical positions are being held by persons that are not wearing Phi Beta Kappa keys or are Rhodes Scholars.

I don't think there necessarily had to be a huge number of people involved. And some that were, I think, were involved with being told what the "big picture" was. Compartmentalisation comes to mind.

The city I live in was bombed many, many time during WWII by the same Japanese squadron that hit Pearl Harbour but once. It was flattened, and more than two hundred people were killed. The government orchestrated a successful cover up the scale of the bombing, and the number of dead.

"At 6.10 pm. Australian dignitaries gathered in the Top End today to remember the bombing of Darwin. Officially 243 people were killed when Japanese forces launched a surprise attack on the city in 1942. But Australians to the south never knew of the magnitude of the event. The government of the day kept the information secret."

http://www.abc.net.au/federation/pg/Federa...ebruary2001.htm 

If something of that magnitude can be kept secret for many, many years in Australia - what does that say of far more savvy operators than a 1940s Australian governemnt to ensure secrecy?

As we continue to devote more Time, which itself is becoming an major enemy, and as we contemplate that the 42 years is soon becoming 43, and if we take an objective look and analysis at this, we are faced with the sad conclusion that we are progressing at snails pace.

I respectfully disagree. There has been some great work done. What is really needed is some way of collating it all and putting together the best possible case for conspiracy. In fact, that may happen this year to some extent. I don't know if it is still going ahead, but a conference this November had been on the drawing board for the purpose of putting such a case together.

Perhaps if my evaluation of our progress is accepted, we should  consider that time consuming discussion over matters such as if Oswald was in reality administered a nitrates test, and even if these tests, are at this time considered of much value, does this prove, really prove, anything?  Does it prove that regardless of whether or not he murdered Tippit, that he was a shooter in the Presidential  assassination? Regardless of whether nitrates were on his inner or outer hand, we all realize that they could have been derived from other sources at his work or even from handling a firearm that had somewhat recently been fired. Proof or disproof of the presence of nitrates does not lead me closer to my personal conclusion that the perpretators, the true conspirators to both murder and cover were a consortium or cabal of Executive Dept., Justice Dept. and intelligence agency "elements", some of whom were influenced by what they assumed to be True Patriotism, who had the backing of the real power in the U.S., those controllers of the money. Call them industrialists, oil interests--- yankees and cowboys.....whatever! Regardless of the name we know what this element is. It was and is THE POWER.

Fine. You've satisfied yourself on whodunit, based presumably mostly on motive. I'd rather get to the bottom of the value of the nitrate evidence, the two wallets, what really transpired in the TSBD and in the TT etc. I think those things have a far greater chance of succeeding in, for instance, convincing legal eagles that "hey, there really is a case here, to show Oswald was innocent, and that means conspiracy needs to be strongly considered and INVESTIGATED."

Perhaps my "Keep it Simple" theory falls far beneath the stratospheric intellectual level where a few researchers have chosen to reside, and I am certainly not referring to any members of this forum. When I have attempted at times past to operate in this thin air, my more earthbound ideas seem to dissipate and spread beyond any area of my control.

Charlie Black

[right][post=36405]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]

Back to the wallet. I have been in touch with Martha Moyer. Her interview with Jez was really just an informal chat confirming what his presentation at a 1999 conference (in which he claimed the wallet at Tippit site was Oswald's). I am now trying to find out what explanation he has for the disparity between that stance and the statements in Myer's tome.

[Charles Black]

Hello Greg

Your comments are both very much appreciated and as usual, well respected.

However, your post IMHO, is one of the clearer examples of what I personally believe to be the principal reason for the failure of closure in this case.

I certainly do not belittle your thought processes but I do question your methods and direction.

I perhaps am too much of a "bottom line" thinker and sometimes fail to appreciate some of the subtleties that I encounter when examining others' thoughts. My approach is first and foremost to determine "WHAT shot John" and attempt to bring it before a properly appointed and sufficiently empowered independent investigative authority. After this has been done, I am both very willing, in fact anxious, to examine the various paths and capillaries, that lead to the varied plots and sub plots in this investigation that are very interesting, even though they were not essential for the resolution of a conspiracy.

Greg, you stated "I'd rather get to the bottom of the nitrate evidence ,the two wallets, what really happened in te TSBD and the TT" / and you further stated "Hey there really is a case here to show that Oswald was innocent".

My thinking is not to prove who was innocent, but to prove who were The guilty! The guilty!

Despite Oswald's guilt or innocence in the Tippit shooting, there are sound arguments, depending on which position that one chooses, that would link or separate the Kennedy and Tippit shootings.

1) Oswald shot Tippit while attempting to escape his murder of Pres. Kennedy.

2) Oswald shot Tippit because, even tho he had not shot the President, he realized that he had been cleverly framed by some very powerful elements and that his life depended on his escape.

3) Tippit was not shot by Oswald, but by a third party who was involved in the assassination, whose purpose was to murder Tippit and leave evidence ( a wallet?) that would point directly to Oswald. This would have been a part of some massive and intricate conspiracy that is too far reaching for me to even imagine.

4) Tippit was shot neither by Oswald nor an assassination conspirator. His shooting was the result of a personal matter and would have occurred regardless of the happenings in Texas Stadium.

Unless the above number one or number three can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (and it of course cannot be or it would have been), further investigation of the Tippit shooting may, in my very strong personal opinion, be excluded from any investigation of a "conspiracy" that resulted in the assassination and its' subsequent and ongoing coverup.

It was once famously and very erroneously stated that the Tippit shooting was "The Rosetta Stone" of the Kennedy assassnation. Too many people have apparently taken this to heart (possibly etched in the rosetta stone). This was one man's opinion, and to me, a most obvious fallacy.

Although I strongly believe in scenario #2, proof of this is not required to prove or disprove conspiracy.

From my point of view, my above statement about proving conspiracy, is similar to my belief that once it has been acknowledged that there was more than one shooter involved in the Plaza, that the second (or perhaps he was the primary) shooter's name and shooting location need not neccessarily be identified. Two shooters are conspiracy! North knoll, South knoll, storm drain, spectator, Dal Tex, roofs........it doesn't matter! The significant factors that occupy my search are; TWO SHOOTERS or FOUR SHOTS! This Two or Four is the only thing needed to prove conspiracy. Once conspiracy is proven beyond any reasonable doubt, then we should examine the Who and the Why.

It seems that we, myself very included, at some past point came to the erroneous conclusion that it was our purpose to prove why JFK was assassinated and to also prove who did it. We were no doubt WRONG in this conclusion.

What I feel is the correct approach if we are to pursue a real, rather than imagined, goal is to show conclusively that there is abundant evidence in many areas which include, medical, forensic, ballistic, accoustic, earwitness, eyewitness etc. etc.. We are to prove that this evidence exists, has existed for a very long time, and this shoud be added to the HSCA conclusions that a conspiracy "most likely" existed and reccommended that it be further investigated.

Far overdue is an attempt to enlist the correct avenue of promoting this with extreme prejudice. Someone with strong enough connections and visibility is essential. Very strong connections and visibility.......

perhaps an ex President (Carter or Clinton?).

I am not at all well schooled in what must be done, but there are many forum members who are.

To any of you who may agree with my thoughts, I strongly enlist your thoughts regarding "Action".

I feel that it is time to quit using assassination research as an amusement mechanism to while away our spare time and to sharpen our wits with lively discussion. My purpose originally for forum participation was not only to learn and discuss, but to use this learning to progress further the cause of solving what is now the "not so mysterious" presidential assassination.

What has not been thoroughly discussed many times over

during these past 42 years and nine months? We now need action!

Charlie Black

PS

Please forgive me for my wandering in this "wallet topic".

Although it wasn't intentional, it can probably be derived from my post that I don't think it brings us any closer to resolution whether the wallet was Tippit's, Oswald's, a third party's, or even if there was a wallet at all!

Edited August 11, 2005 by Charles Black

[Pat Speer]

Charles, we are thinking alike in many ways. I've spent much of the last year developing a presentation that will use the medical evidence as a base to show beyond a reasonable doubt that more than one shooter was involved. Without claiming alteration. Without claiming falsification of the evidence. The evidence compiled by the government itself does indeed point conclusively to conspiracy. The problem is that the medical establishment has been too cowardly to admit it. It's time to seek out some brave souls, and overturn the myths of Baden and the FPP.

[Guest John Gillespie]

I don't have an explanation for Fritz's motivations.  But from the evidence presented, I think it's indisputable that:

1.) Oswald had a wallet on him when arrested;

2.) There was a wallet recovered at the Tippitt murder scene, and its examination was filmed.

What was in either wallet, and at what time, is where the conflicts and the arguments begin.

Now...am I correct that we are in agreement on these two points?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I believe Oswald had a wallet on him, because I believe the testimony of the officers involved.

My God, how silly this has gotten! The man was framed, dammit, framed for at least one murder. Did they miss what I wrote about a wallet, the wallet, some wallet being left 'intact' in LHO's dresser drawer that very morning? Kind of renders the wallet business mutually exclusive to the Tippit murder, which will NEVER be solved. There were wallets (plural) Oswalds (plural) and snipers (plural).

Nobody is asserting that Oswald didn't have a wallet on him when arrested. What is being debated is what ID that wallet contained. Police maintain he possessed "Hidell" ID, yet there is no mention of that fact anywhere until after the rifle was traced to him.

I'm not sure if there was a wallet found at the Tippit scene. The item on the film looks like it could be a wallet. But we have no contemporaneous statements or reports indicating it was Oswald's wallet, only Hosty's second hand info years later. Correct?

Not entirely. As Greg Parker has pointed out, Martha Moyer has interviewed another officer at the scene, Leonard Jez, and he confirmed to her that the wallet was Oswald's. Obviously, unless he made it his business to seek out this picayune detail, he wouldn't have known about what Oswald had on him when arrested, and would thus be unaware of the implied conflict of two wallets.

Moreover, Captain Fritz did supply a second "Oswald" wallet to FBI five days after Oswald's arrest. From whence did this second wallet originate if not what we know was filmed at the Tippit crime scene?

It could be Oswald's wallet; it could be the wallet of one of the three tramps for all we know. The possibility that it was Oswald's wallet seems to have taken seed and blossomed in the imaginations of many, to the point where they accept it as fact. This is what I'm arguing against. Not against the possibility, but against the likelihood, and that this blossoming of imagination is of a purely rational nature.

Now, to me, the likelihood of this theory gets greater as the circle of the intrigue gets smaller. If one is to assert that the rifle was bought by a Hidell, and that therefore a number of documents were faked to indicate that Oswald was Hidell, and a number of people were co-erced into lying about it and pretending they'd heard of Hidell before the assassination, I'd say one ate too many twinkies for breakfast.

Since none of the foregoing has been alleged here, the twinkies are irrelevant.

If one is to assert instead that Oswald was Hidell, that ONI or the CIA knew he was Hidell, that one of their operatives decided to frame Oswald for the Kennedy assassination, and that they planted the Oswald wallet to connect him to the Tippit killing, I'd say that this could be, but I don't think so, as the Tippit killing would have to be considered, literally, overkill. And totally unnecessary.

Unnecessary only in the event that Oswald actually killed Tippit, and that Oswald was to be captured, rather than vanish. How would anyone be able to tell that Oswald was Tippit's killer in the event that he wasn't arrested, Pat? Please don't make the all-too-common error of assuming that all went as planned, and then draw your conclusions accordingly. If somebody is going to the effort of implicating Oswald in a crime that he didn't commit - arguendo, for that is what the wallet suggests - they presumably didn't expect Oswald to be around, or their actions were rendundant and superfluous. That is what makes it appear to be overkill.

There are a number of reasons I'm reluctant to assume Oswald did not kill Tippit and that he was framed.

1. The timing and location of the killing is consistent with Oswald's actual whereabouts. If one is to assume he was framed then the fact that Oswald was not seen elsewhere at the time of the killing must just be a coincidence.

In order to conclude this, one must disregard the latter-day comments of Butch Burroughs, George Applin and the others in the theatre who maintain that Oswald arrived there well before Johnny Brewer called police. Much as I would prefer that their statements had been entered into the record in a timely fashion, if authorities failed to do so, the fault is not with the witnesses [whose very names DPD didn't feel the need to note] but with the police. Hence, Oswald was "seen elsewhere at the time of the killing." It's just that you've glossed over these details as though they don't exist, for reasons you've yet to explain.

Similarly, Oswald was in the vicinity of the President's murder, a crime committed with a weapon attributed to Oswald, and Oswald wasn't seen elsewhere at the time of that crime either. Yet you don't consider that sufficient reason to implicate him in that crime, Pat. Why the inconsistency in approach?

2. The killer was seen walking in the direction of the theater, where Oswald was seen moments later.

Or seen before the killing, if one credits the witnesses mentioned above.

3. The killer is reported to have muttered "poor dumb cop," which I find consistent with Oswald's personality and inconsistent with that of an impersonator, who would be unlikely to talk at all, and risk demonstrating he was not Oswald.

Again, this presumes that Oswald would be available to serve as an exemplar of his speech pattern. How would the killer have known that Oswald would be arrested 30 minutes before it happened? How and why would a killer have any such knowledge or concern?

4. When arrested Oswald behaved as though he believed the cops might kill him; while this could be true of someone who knows he's been framed as the assassin of the President, this is undoubtedly true of someone who knows he's just killed a cop.

If it's true that Oswald went to the rooming house and armed himself, but only after the assassination, he presumably feared something.

5. When arrested Oswald actually reached for his weapon, a pistol the same caliber as the slugs removed from Tippit's body.

This is true only if one disregards Gerald Hill's radio call indicating the shells were .32 automatics, not .38s. And if one sees nothing odd in the fact that Poe marked the shells at the scene, but his markings aren't on the shells in evidence.

That he tried to kill a cop when cornered in the theater is undoubtedly indiicative he might do so when cornered on the street by the unsuspecting Tippit.

6.There were a number of witnesses who IDed Oswald as the killer. Admittedly, the line-ups were less than ideal.

And there were witnesses who either failed or refused to ID Oswald as the killer, even when the lineups were so lopsidedly slanted against him. Let's not gloss over them.

7. To me, the fact that Oswald had the Hidell ID on him when arrested is an indication he was unaware his rifle was used in the assassination.

This presumes that the "Hidell" ID was found upon him. You have admitted that you cannot demonstrate this to be so, aside from the later testimony of two of the five officers purportedly involved. Their own testimony varies wildly on key facts, and the supposedly corroborative testimony of other officers who reputedly saw that ID on 11/22 back at HQ only supples more contradictions, rather than support. You've made no attempt to deal with any of those matters, one notes. You simply shrug as though it is of no import.

Oswald was not stupid. In fact he was much smarter than average. He also was not delusional. He would have to have known the rifle could be traced to Hidell. Maybe he just didn't care. It's really tough to say.

Maybe he didn't order the rifle, a possibility you seem resolutely determined not to entertain. Again, you simply accept that he did order the rifle, and insist that we should too. The assumption of too much in the absence of evidence isn't common sense, or logical, or science.

8. If Oswald was indeed heading east on 10th then he was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's place. To walk 3/4 a mile from his home and come within less that distance of Ruby's apartment seems like quite the coincidence, and yet another reason to suspect a conspiracy. If Oswald was never at the Tippit site, however, then this connection is lost.

Perhaps this is why you insist that Oswald was the one who killed Tippit, irrespective of the evidence to the contrary, to preserve the "connection" to Jack Ruby's home. Could you explain why this is of such great importance to your scenario that you will ignore the evidence Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer?

My interest is in who killed the President. I don't believe it was Oswald. I have no problems, however, assuming Oswald killed Tippit. If I'd been framed for killing the President, and was on the run, I might have done the same.

And yet only a few grafs above, you asserted that if Oswald was carrying the "Hidell" ID, and you insist he was [evidence to the contrary notwithstanding], it "is an indication he was unaware his rifle was used in the assassination." If he didn't know his rifle was used in the assassination, on what basis did he now know that he'd "been framed for killing the President?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Mark Knight]

Now, I've been thinking about something related to Oswald's wallet...the one left behind at the Paine house...the one that allegedly contained $170.

As I understand it, Oswald made $1.25 an hour. For him to be carrying $170, that amounts to the pay for 136--yes, one hundred thirty-six--hours' work, at straight time [haven't seen any evidence that he worked any overtime at TSBD]. Based upon a 40-hour workweek, that equals the pay for 3 weeks and 2 days [3.4 weeks @ 40 hours/week].

Now, let's put that in the perspective of today's dollars...at minimum wage of $5.35 an hour, the average McDonald's counterjockey would be carrying $727 and some change at the corresponding rate.

Just doesn't compute. Goes against human nature.

So Oswald's got a wife and two children, one an infant, and he's been walking around with over three weeks' pay in his wallet while the family has to depend on the kindness of strangers for food, shelter, and clothing.

And then when he's arrested--with another wallet on his person, by the way--he's got what appears to be the remnants of $15 in his pockets [$13.85, after bus/cab fare and the Coke in the lunchroom at the TSBD]. For a man making minimum wage, he's rollin' in dough, comparatively speaking. So that means that, sometime within the 24-hour span of November 21/22, Oswald has had the equivalent of almost four weeks' pay [3.7, to be exact] in his hands...and that's apparently after paying rent on his room!

[While tax withholding is common in the US today, in 1963 it wasn't as commonly done. I haven't investigated whether the TSBD withheld taxes from paychecks; if so, then Oswald might have been carrying the after-tax proceeds of nearly ALL his TSBD paychecks...]

While it's probably an understatement to characterize Oswald's behaviour as "eccentric," this amount of money being carried, relative to his weekly income of around $50, begins to border on bizarre.

Anybody have further insight on this aspect?

[Tim Gratz]

Excellent post, Mark!

[Pat Speer]

While it's probably an understatement to characterize Oswald's behaviour as "eccentric," this amount of money being carried, relative to his weekly income of around $50, begins to border on bizarre.

Anybody have further insight on this aspect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The WC was anxious to head off any speculation that Oswald had any extra sources of income and spent an inordinate amount of time trying to show that Oswald was a cheap skate. They did this in part to account for this money. Strangely, though, they wouldn't reveal his tax returns. I believe his tax returns are still classified. Ain't that a hoot?

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Dick Daley was reportedly quoted as saying that the dead in Chicago should not be disenfranchised re their voting rights.

If the voting rights of the deceased should not be impaired, why should their privacy rights?

[Mark Knight]

I received the following message:

Hi Mark,

You've made an erroneous assumption that ALL of Oswald's money came from his TSBD employment. In fact, he had saved money from earlier jobs and unemployment compensation. All his tax returns were released except for 1962. Marina has a copy and researchers have examined it and found nothing suspicious or anything that was not already known.

Gary Mack

Thanks for the info, Gary...but I never was quite satisfied with the WC explanation for Oswald's cash-on-hand. I mean, here's a guy who's been out of work for quite some time, and then, AFTER traveling to Mexico AND getting a new place to live in a rooming house, is able to save MOST of what he made on the job? I realize he wasn't like folks today, with car payments and hobbies that take cash away...but evidently he didn't eat for days at a time, and his clothes just never wore out or got torn or damaged while working in a warehouse...

I still find all this just highly incredible.

After losing a job in Texas, he moves to New Orleans and starts a new job. THAT should be enough to STOP the flow of Texas unemployment compensation funds. But his employment at the coffee company doesn't last long, and there's no record of him taking another job in New Orleans. Yet he can travel to speak at a college, he can travel to Mexico and back...and still have money left over from his unemployment compensation?

Give me a break...I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.

While Oswald's in jail in Dallas, he tells Marina to buy June some shoes...as if, up to this point, he didn't have money available to buy shoes for June. Yet he's packing around almost 4 weeks' pay...which means that he must have had money for shoes for June prior to this, UNLESS the $170 came from some sort of windfall. And his visit to Irving on the 21st wasn't the first since he started working at the TSBD...nor was it the first visit in four weeks, which might've explained why he'd still be holding nearly 4 weeks' pay rather than buying shoes for his daughter.

The WC explanation was fishy, and it doesn't take an icthyologist to figure that out.

[David G. Healy]

I received the following message:

Hi Mark,

You've made an erroneous assumption that ALL of Oswald's money came from his TSBD employment. In fact, he had saved money from earlier jobs and unemployment compensation. All his tax returns were released except for 1962. Marina has a copy and researchers have examined it and found nothing suspicious or anything that was not already known.

Gary Mack

Thanks for the info, Gary...but I never was quite satisfied with the WC explanation for Oswald's cash-on-hand.  I mean, here's a guy who's been out of work for quite some time, and then, AFTER traveling to Mexico AND getting a new place to live in a rooming house, is able to save MOST of what he made on the job?  I realize he wasn't like folks today, with car payments and hobbies that take cash away...but evidently he didn't eat for days at a time, and his clothes just never wore out or got torn or damaged while working in a warehouse...

I still find all this just highly incredible.

After losing a job in Texas, he moves to New Orleans and starts a new job.  THAT should be enough to STOP the flow of Texas unemployment compensation funds.  But his employment at the coffee company doesn't last long, and there's no record of him taking another job in New Orleans.  Yet he can travel to speak at a college, he can travel to Mexico and back...and still have money left over from his unemployment compensation?

Give me a break...I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.

While Oswald's in jail in Dallas, he tells Marina to buy June some shoes...as if, up to this point, he didn't have money available to buy shoes for June.  Yet he's packing around almost 4 weeks' pay...which means that he must have had money for shoes for June prior to this, UNLESS the $170 came from some sort of windfall.  And his visit to Irving on the 21st wasn't the first since he started working at the TSBD...nor was it the first visit in four weeks, which might've explained why he'd still be holding nearly 4 weeks' pay rather than buying shoes for his daughter.

The WC explanation was fishy, and it doesn't take an icthyologist to figure that out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark,

Be prepared , thoughts, original ideas or assumptions not in agreement with Gary -or- the lacking WCR, will earn you the occasional note of correction, corrections that adhere to the party line, of course...

David

[Christopher T. George]

Hi Mark

I'm probably stating the obvious here but could the $170 have been received from persons unknown either for carrying out the assassination or else playing the patsy for the real assassins?

Chris

[Mark Knight]

Gary Mack sent me yet another message:

Mark,

$170 is $1038 in today's money, so it was not just spare change. Oswald did receive unemployment comepensation from Louisiana following his job loss in New Orleans. As I said, it's obvious from the known documentation that he had no other income, at least, not of any significant amount.

Researcher Mary Ferrell studied his 1962 return and found it matched within a dollar or less. She also had, as do others, access to his 1963 return and it accurately reflected his known income.

If you'd like to speculate that he had other income sources, fine, but guesswork isn't going to get anywhere.

Gary Mack

Obviously, Gary has missed my point. I was trying to make the same point that Gary did in his message, that in 1963, for a person making $1.25 an hour, $170 was a considerably large mound of cash to be carrying on one's person. Gary, I apologize for the lack of clarity of my original statement.

But let's be honest here. In 1963, a 6-ounce Coca-cola was 10 cents, having not long before gone up from 5 cents. A plate lunch in a restaurant was around 80 cents to $1.25, depending on geographic region. And $170 was a suspiciously large amount of cash for a minimum-wage worker to be carrying at one time.

Just as $727 would be a huge wad of cash for today's minimum-wage worker to be carrying [bTW, Gary, thanks for demonstrating how the US minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation since 1963...despite what Limbaugh and others may claim].

I'm just trying to understand what Gary's point is. First he states that in 1963 dollars, $170 is a huge amount of money for a minimum wage worker to have [which echoes my point]. Then he implies that there's nothing unusual about Oswald ahving that amount of money on him.

So which is it, Gary....is it unusual for a minimum-wage worker to be carrying nearly an entire month's wages on him, after working on his latest job less than two months? Or is it a normal, everyday occurrence which should raise no eyebrows, because apparently everybody does it? Gary, you seem to want to have it both ways.

Either it's an unusually large amount of cash for someone in Oswald's financial circumstances to be carrying at one time...or it isn't. I contend that it's aberrant behavior, even for Oswald, to be carrying a month's pay.

And Chris, I'm not speculating on other income sources...I'm just stating the facts as I know them, and trying to put them into context of the time period as I knew it.

And as far as Oswald's 1963 tax return...it wasn't due to be filed until April 15, 1964...so I'd say the figures there weren't posted by Oswald...and since Marina had little command of English at that time, I'd suggest that someone else filled in the blanks. Whether the information was accurate or not is a wide-open field, since Marina admitted that Lee handled all the money, and Lee was no longer among the living [and therefore not liable for perjury charges if the information on the form was false]. So the 1963 Oswald tax form could state whatever those who handled it wanted it to state. Dead men don't go to jail for tax evasion.

But this tax form discussion takes us away from explaining why Oswald would be carrying nearly a month's pay, and yet his family was living in poverty. Obviously, he wasn't saving that money for his retirement.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Mark Knight