Pat Speer

One of the things that really struck me about Owen's story was that, as I remember it, his alibi for the night of the assassination was Slapsy Maxie Rosenbloom, a business partner of Mickey Cohen's. Cohen hated Robert Kennedy almost as much as Hoffa. Cohen was also close to Belli, Ruby's attorney, and had dated Candy Barr, who'd work for Ruby. Was this just a coincidence?

Hi, this is Pat Speer, one of the regular contributors over on the JFK Assassination Forum. Recently, we were discussing the death of Italian oilman Enrico Mattei. While there is very little available on the recent investigations into his death available on the internet in English, there appear to be hundreds of hits on this in Italian. I am particularly interested in the purported statements of Gaetano Ianni. If someone here could google "Gaetano Ianni" and "Enrico Mattei," read a few of the Italian articles, and summarize them on the JFK Asssassination Forum thread "Enrico Mattei" it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Yes, I believe Oswald had a wallet on him, because I believe the testimony of the officers involved. 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? 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. 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. 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. 2. The killer was seen walking in the direction of the theater, where Oswald was seen moments later. 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. 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. 5. When arrested Oswald actually reached for his weapon, a pistol the same caliber as the slugs removed from Tippit's body. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

In an affidavitt filed with the Warren Commission, Mrs. Roberts said "Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the same side of the street as our house. I just glanced out the window that once. I don't know how long Lee Oswald stood at the curb nor did I see which direction he went when he left there..." You are correct, however, that it was Markham who said he was heading east on 10th. The Discovery Channel simulation, by the way, timed the trek as 16:11 in order for Oswald to be heading west on 10th (thus, too long), and 11:10 for him to be heading east (just right, according to your own calculations.) My own simulation was not actually a test. A friend of mine drove the distance at around 10 miles per hour. As I recall it took less than 5 minutes. It was more to get a feel than to try and test the thing. I'm 6'4 with long legs and walk at a fairly brisk pace. It seemed to me that for someone my size and shape the walk would be easily do-able. The Discovery Channel used someone of Oswald's age and weight, and found it was just that.

Robert, I have always enjoyed your slippery ways with an argument. Here you are pressuring me to PROVE there's evidence that the DPD found the Hidell card on Oswald, outside their word, when you know that no such proof exists. My argument, from the get-go, has been that your purported conspiracy to hide a second wallet and pretend that the Hidell ID was found in the car makes no sense. And the more you write about it, the less sense it makes. You are trying to get me to explain the lack of mention of the Hidell card in the early reports. Heck, I don't know. That's my explanation. But what I do know is that your belief that it never happened because they never mentioned it is not exactly scientific, is it? If they were gonna tell a bunch of lies and continue to lie years later, WHY OH WHY wouldn''t they have simply created some fake reports to back up their lies? Like the rest of us, you pick and choose which evidence by the DPD is fake and which is real, based upon your hunches. My hunch tells me that all the evidence and testimony is to be trusted unless one can find a compelling reason why someone would lie. To me, the cover-up of this second wallet is far from compelling. If it was used to incriminate Oswald in some way, I might feel differently. But instead, you hold that the finding of this wallet, which was incredibly damaging to Oswald, was covered up by Fritz because??? frankly, I don't understand any of your reasons. You also doubt the words of Marina and Jones and Shanklin and Deloach etc, all based on your hunch that Fritz orchestrated a cover-up for unexplainable reasons. I just don't buy it. I have read thousands and thousands of pages of reports and testimony related to the assassination, and have always given the writers and witnesses the benehit of the doubt. And guess what, it still points to a conspiracy. When you start deciding that everyone is lying about the little things, you have no foundation to understand the big things. And no ability to build an argument that will ever reach a consensus. FWIW, Deloach wrote that he spoke to Shanklin on the night of the assassination and that Shanklin told him they'd opened up a file on Oswald on 1-12-61, as a result of a letter from the ONI office in New Orleans, and that this file now said that Oswald had "formed a chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, which listed a fictitious A.J. Hidell as its president." If this date is accurate, this makes me suspect that ONI was watching Oswald from before he even returned from Russia, and keeping the FBI informed, rather than the other way around. This supports Jones' testimony that they knew all about the Hidell identity. Pity they destroyed their files...

Jack, I have been to Oak Cliff and have checked out the route, and it is easily do-able. Gary Mack and Dave Perry were involved in a simulation for the Discovery Channel. What they found, however, was that to make it in time the walker would have to be heading East at the Tippit site, which contradicted the WC's conclusions. (I believe Markham said he was heading west and Scoggins said he was heading East.) I quickly ran a Yahoo map after this and saw that the Ruby apartment, Ewing and the Freeway, was right down the street. I'm not sure where you get that Oswald was heading North, but clearly he did not, as the Texas Theater was west of the Tippit site, and considerably south of Oswald's rooming house. After spending some time in the neighborhood it becomes abundantly clear that if you were on foot and looking to hide out the theater would be your best bet. That's where I would run. And that's where I believe Oswald ran.

Enrico Mattei

I stand by my assertion that Weberman's opinion of Fensterwald is connected to Fensterwald's disagreement with Weberman regarding the tramps. In that case, the LaFontaine's must be CIA, too. Heck, I could even be CIA.

At the risk of being a stick-in-the-mud, the three man presidential review board that probed the Iran-Contra affair WAS the Tower Commission, aka The President's Special Review Board, consisting of Bush mentor and pal John Tower, Bush's future co-author and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and token Democrat (and former Nixon victim) Edmund Muskie. Heinz was a sitting senator, was he not? Active members of congress, as a matter of practice, do not chair presidential commissions. I could be wrong, but I think this writer was confused. Perhaps Heinz was in a Senate Committee that looked into the scandal.

And you mustn't forget Shanet's boy, Douglas Dillon, who was also aboard the Rockefeller Whitewash express.

While I could speculate on Fensterwald's connections, I'll leave his defense to someone who actually knew him. I would like to gently correct John, before he decides that I'm CIA, that it was HUAC, not HCUA. I think it also should be pointed out that there was at least some truth to the Garrison/mob connection story, in that Garrison made several trips to Vegas on the house and was believed to have met with Rosselli. What's worse is Garrison denied knowledge of Marcello's position in the mob until the day he died. I also think it was inaccurate to say that Garrison's ties to the mob cost him politically. I seem to remember it was an unsubstantiated allegation that he'd molested a young boy that brought about his downfall. I honestly believe the wide-spread theory that BillingsBlakeyFensterwald were all CIA assets is a bit paranoid. I think the idea that CIA would try and use the mob as a "patsy" is ridiculous. Anyone who looks closely at the mob, will see CIA. Anyone who looks closely at the CIA, will see the mob. They were business partners.

Larry Teeter died? I met him last year at Lancer. While he appeared to be in poor health, he still had quite an active mind. I just googled him and found nothing about his death. Do you have any details? nothing suspicious I hope.

Tom, could this copper base have disappeared during the NAA tests performed by Dr. Guinn? I believe he removed some lead from the base for his tests.

Yeah, Bravo, Robert, you really showed me... Seriously, I believe you are the one who needs to put up. If I'm reading you right, you're saying a number of things that not only run counter to the evidence, but run counter to common sense. 1. That Oswald was not Hidell, and never used the name. 2. That there was no evidence that Oswald had a connection to Hidell prior to the discovery at Klein's. 3. That no one discussed Oswald's connection to Hidell before the discovery at Klein's. 4. That the Hidell card was added into the evidence AFTER the discovery at Klein's. 5. That everyone who ever said they saw the Hidell card before the discovery at Klein's is a xxxx and/or perjurer. 6. That everyone who failed to admit that a second wallet was found was a xxxx and/or perjurer. Am I reading this correctly? Or are you at least willing to admit that Oswald WAS Hidell? The Hidell identity goes back to New Orleans. Hidell was stamped on the mailers Oswald was handing out. Marina admitted she forged the Hidell name for her husband. If you're saying that Oswald was not Hidell,, then this adds a few more to your ever-growing colony of liars and conspirators, now doesn't it? Robert Jones said he told Shanklin that Oswald was Hidell on the day of the assassination, before the rifle sales slip was ever found. Deke Deloach says he talked to Shanklin that night, and that Shanklin told him that Oswald used the name Hidell. If you're saying that there was no evidence linking Oswald to Hidell before the Klein's sales slip was found, then these men are all liars, too. If, however, you're saying that Oswald was Hidell, and that for some reason it was considered expedient to fabricate evidence indicating as much, I must ask WHY??? If the conspirators were trying to link the rifle to Oswald, why not leave the wallet in the sniper's nest? The only thing that might make sense is that they were afraid the DPD would find Oswald before they did, and wanted to increase the odds that the DPD killed Oswald. So wham! kill a cop...throw down Oswald's ID. Still, if the IDs were planted at the Tippit scene, why did the DPD not mention thisl ...when this would have convicted Oswald immediately in the public's eye? I fail to believe that the DPD's finding the Hidell ID at the Tipit site was so ewwwy scary that Fritz would deny the existence of this wallet, switch the Hidell ID into the other wallet, and convince several officers to lie about it. Oswald's having two wallets was not much weirder than much of the story the WC eventually settled on, e.g. Oswald smuggling a rifle into a building in a brown paper bag with sharp crease lines and no sign that a rifle was ever inside. Or perhaps there was no Hidell ID at all on Friday; perhaps it was fabricated by the DPD afterwards. And then talked a whole bunch of people into lying about it. Is that what you're saying? I jjust think it makes a lot more sense that the Hidell card was found on Oswald, per Bentley, per Hill, etc.. In fact, I'd find it surprising if Oswald, who'd at least had a taste of the intelligence game, DIDN'T have a fake ID on him, since he was trying to flee. Or do you think he was just out for a stroll? That he took the Hidell ID with him is to me an indication that he was unaware his rifle had been used in the killing. In this way, to me, the Hidell ID is evidence for Oswald's innocence in the killing of Kennedy. That the Tippit site was on a direct path to Ruby's place (and is precisely in the area a briskly-walking man would be if he left Oswald's rooming house at the time described by Mrs. Roberts) is just too much a coincidence, and is indicative that Oswald was indeed at the site, and was indeed part of a conspiracy. (Who knows? Maybe he realized he'd been set up and was going there to KILL Ruby!) While admittedly I entered this debate unprepared and have argued out of my ass, not unlike Mr. Gratz at times, it is you who has based your whole theory on the statements of one or two witnesses, of questionable value, and has stacked their weak words against a mountain of evidence indicating Oswald was Hidell and the sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater, and that they discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter. Your insistence that the early reports should have mentioned the Hidell card is just that: your insistence. It could very well be that they were asked not to mention Hidell until the name could be thoroughly investigated; we have no way of knowing. For you to throw out the words of all these men, and decide they are all liars, based upon the words of Barrett, as remembered by Hosty, is to me an indication of your letting your bias get in the way of your intellect. I think you have more in common with Mr. Gratz then you would care to admit. As we all do, at times.

No it isn't. According to you, his short term memory must have been downright lousy -"forgetting" as he did, that he'd found two sets of ID when making his first statement. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I just went back and re-read the pertinent parts of Assignment: Oswald. Is it correct that this 1996 book, written by a man many conspiracists assume is a xxxx, is the only evidence that Barrett said what he said. Is it also correct that Barrett was the FBI agent in charge of investigating the Tippit killing, and that he never mentioned this second wallet in any of his reports? And that as a result of Hosty's 30 year-old memory of what Barrett said, people are willing to conclude that Fritz, Hill, Bentley, Westbrook and Barrett himself all covered up the existence of this wallet? I wonder if Hosty had said that Barrett said Oswald's fingerprints were all over the car, whether people here would swallow it with such gusto. Somehow I think not.

Thanks, Gerry, for another colorful post. Am wondering if you can cite your source for the contention that RFK personally ordered Conein to allow the assassination to take place, as this is news to me. There are numerous references to JFK's naivete in believing the coup could take place without Diem and his brothers being killed. From what I can gather, the man mostly at fault was Lodge, who urged the coup and then failed to act when Kennedy expressed second thoughts. According to many sources, Lodge even promised one of Diem's brothers safe passage before turning him over to his assassins. Lodge is also reported to have mocked Kennedy's shock afterwards. Lodge was, of course, at home with coup d'etats and assassination due to his family's ties to United Fruit. According to Ellen J. Hammer's A Death in November, Bobby Kennedy was against the coup, and said that JFK was gonna fire Lodge as soon as Lodge got back to Washington, which would have been on the Sunday after Dallas. (Instead, Lodge spoke to Johnson, told hm the coup had failed and that Vietnam was going to hell in a handbasket. Shortly thereafter Lodge urged the bombing of North Vietnam, resigned his ambassadorship, and ran for President against Johnson.) While Ms. Hammer's book is my source for much of the material damaging to Lodge, McNamara's In Retrospect and the Church Committee reports place Lodge at the center of these intrigues as well. In closing, a review on the back of Ms. Hammer's book may be relevant. It says "Sets many of the events in proper perspective..The most factual and best effort on Vietnam leading up the "death in November" that has been published.."--Lucien Conein. It seems to me that it was Lodge who told Conein not to interfere, and not RFK.

But Bentley did tell Sneed years later, when he may very well have forgotten what he was "supposed to say," that he took Oswald's wallet out and found the Hidell ID, and that he asked Oswald whether he was Oswald or Hidell,and that Oswald said "you find out the best you can!" (Aha! I found the quote I asked about earlier..) In order to hide the existence of the wallet found at the Tippit site, Fritz, Hill, Bentley, and Westbrook, at the least, would have to be part of the plot. All cops. All purported liars! All conspiring to hide evidence that may have helped them find the actual killer of a fellow cop! And to what end? What was gained by hiding the wallet? Nothing., They could easily have said that Oswald threw it down to let them know he was responsible. After all, he went crazy that day when his wife wouldn't give him any and decided to kill the President, didn't he? If they were willing to fake and lie to whatever extent necessary, then why DON'T the slugs in Tippit conclusively match Oswald's gun? Why WASN'T the jacket found by Westbrook conclusively linked to Oswald? I don't know, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's because it was the actual evidence the DPD discovered... As pointed out earlier, the whole scenario espoused by so many on this thread is supported almost solely by Barrett's memory. He is Hosty's source, is he not? . How reliable is this man's memory? How old was he when he made his statements? Admittedly, I haven't spent the time on this others here have. But I've read nothing to make me trust this man's word over a number of DPD officers, who would have no reason to lie. Where can I find Barrett's statements to see what other claims he makes, in order to determine his credibility? The other two pieces of the puzzle seem to be Postal's statement taken months after the assassination, by which time a number of conversations with police may have blurred togethe in her mind, and some news footage of some cops inspecting something that may or may not be a wallet. (My wallet when opened certainly doesn't look like that.) I still think the evidence is far from convincing enough to assert that so many men would lie. And the assertion that Tippit was selected for assassination by his superiors based upon his being slow is downright disgusting. While so many here embrace JFK for his belief in civil rights and human dignity, it doesn't seem like this embrace of compassion and empathy has allowed them to acknowledge that even redneck southern cops care about their co-workers and have professional pride. I don't think Hoover, as piggish as he was, would allow for one of his men to be killed unnecessarily, and I don't believe Fritz and Curry were any different. The evidence collected at the TSBD was enough to convict Oswald--the Tippit killing was completely extraneous to the plot to kill Kennedy. Only a bad script writer would concoct a scenario whereby a cop is killed to frame a man who is already a fugitve from justice and wanted for the murder of the President of the United States. To what end? Perhaps Tippit WAS supposed to take Oswald to the airport, but then changed his mind, and Oswald shot him. Perhaps Oswald was with another man, and the other guy shot Tippit. I don't know. But what I do know is that to assert that Oswald was not even at the Tippit scene, and that someone framed him, and that all the eyewitnesses are wrong, and that every piece of evidence connecting Oswald to the crime scene is fake, and that every piece of evidence connecting Oswald to Hidell is fake, and that even Marina lied about her knowledge of Hidell, is ridiculous. You might as well say that Oswald never even worked at the TSBD. But, my resistance to this scenario is getting in the way of others sharing info. I don't want to pull a Gratz. Robert said that a wallet was sent ot the FBI some days after the other evidence. Was this a second wallet? Or the one found at the Tippit site? School me.

Thanks, John, for posting this informative excerpt from Attwood's book. I was particularly pleased by Schlesinger's confirmation that the section of Kennedy's speech quoted above was a deliberate message to Castro to let him know accomodation was possible. When I first read this speech I understood it the exact same way. In Bringuier's Red Friday he quotes this speech and claims the exact opposite--that this was the speech of a man determined to overthrow Castro, and that the Castro supporter Oswald killed him as a result. Bringuier, as you know, was DRE, funded and guided by the CIA. I also find it fascinating that in all the behind the scenes talks the CIA was never consulted. They wouldn't have liked that. Nor would have the JCS.

I'd like to thank John and Mel for this excellent thread. I believe the Forum suffers when it's limited to conspiracists jockeying for position. While my knowledge of the RFK and MLK killings is much less than my knowledge of the JFK killing, it certainly seems to me these killings are much more likely to have been the act of a lone-nut than that of JFK. Basically, there were men convicted of these crimes who appear to have been involved, and neither of them ever offered to tattle on any co-conspirators in exchange for leniency. If Oswald had lived and failed to try and cop a plea, or was unable to come up with a conspiracy scenario that seemed firmly grounded in reality, I would say the same about him. Jack Ruby, for whatever reason, did this country a great disservice.

On what day did this take place? I just read something in a book about Martha Mitchell that may or may not tie in to all this activity. In Martha, by Winzola Mclendon, p.167, it says that a few days after John Mitchell resigned as AG in order to work on CREEP full-time--so this is March?--Jack Caulfield, who was sunning himself by the pool along with the Mitchells at Bebe Rebozo's house in Florida, "had to leave in a hurry because of a problem in Washington." Caulfield, of course, was a former NY detective, and was working with Ulasewicz. I wonder what this sudden "problem" was and if it really was in Washington.

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}> Robert, as I said, I was 95% convinced Oswald killed Tippit, not 100%. My snottiness on this thread has been for two reasons. One is to encourage people like yourself to try and convince me of Oswald's innocence, so that I can learn from them. Two is to encourage people still learning about this aspect of the case to not drink the kool-aid. There is a tendency for assassination researchers everywhere to doubt the official story at all times, and to automatically trust any witness whose testimony calls the official story into doubt. The truth, however, is that human memory is fallible and an over-reliance upon the recollections of one witness is a sure road to confusion. I'm in a similar argument with Tom Purvis on JFK's wounds--he holds Boswell's statements over those of Humes and Finck when it's clear Boswell was the most confused of the three, with the weakest memory. You're right about Postal. I forgot it was in her FBI statement, not something she said years later. The problem is that in order to believe her you have to disbelieve a number of others, men who otherwise would appear to have no connection to the assassination. It seems far more likely to me that she simply was an exciteable person whose memory exaggerated certain aspects of what she witnessed. I just re-read Westbrook's interview with Sneed and he acknowledges they went to the Texas Theater assuming the man who shot Tippit also killed the President. He says he went directly to the Tippit shooting from the TSBD. (In retrospect, I suppose it makes sense for an FBI agent to go over there as well, just in case.) He says that they received rumors that the shooter was in a library along the way. He says that the body was gone when they got there, but that he interviewed a woman who'd seen the killing (Good old Helen Markham, I suppose). He says that as he started walking up an alley, he and two other officers spotted the jacket. And THEN they went to the theater and confronted Oswald. He notes that he was the ranking officer at the scene. He says he went back to his car and drove to City Hall. Since he was Internal Affairs, and not Homicide, this scenario makes a lot more sense than I first would admit. His presence at the Tippit site was not necessary for them to conduct their investigation. Evidently, he did not go back to the Tippit scene, after having been there only 15-25 minutes. While I have on other threads expressed the opinion that the DPD may have framed Oswald with the backyard photos, this thread is of a different sort. Your theory holds that the DPD failed to investigate the murder of one of their own--that they knew someone had tried to frame Oswald and that they looked the other way. I just don't buy this. I believe if they'd found a second wallet the Birch-oriented DPD would have claimed the commie Oswald was going around killing cops and leaving his ID at the scene as a taunt. That he was a psycho cop-killer. And the American people would have believed them. The cover-up of the second wallet makes no sense. I don't believe it happened.

My own studies, John, have indicated that it was possible a bullet exiting Kennedy's neck could go on to hit Connally, but not likely that a bullet entering Kennedy's back in the position of the autopsy photos could do so, And NOT CE 399, which was insufficiently damaged to invoke so much damage! Furthermore, when one studies the Z-film, and the positions of the bodies required to make the SBT work, one can see that Connally wasn't over far enough in his seat to have a laser project back from his armpit through Kennedy's throat and into the sniper's nest. When one positions the bodies properly it points back towards the Dal-tex.

Because we know that Barrett and Captain Westbrook, who was holding the wallet and asked Barrett if he knew who Lee Harvey Oswald was, were subsequently present in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested. Westbrook told the WC that he got in Oswald's face when he was handcuffed in the theater and asked him his name, and when Oswald didn't reply, Westbrook yelled, "Get him out of here. Get him in the squad car and head straight to the city hall and notify them you are on the way." BTW Westbrook is not only credited with finding the killer's wallet at the Tippit scene (though the wallet disappeared and Westbrook can therefore no longer be credited with finding it), and was present in the theater when the killer was arrested, but he also found the jacket that the killer had discarded in his flight. Westbrook was virtually stumbling over evidence that day, inevitably to look the killer in the eye. Was this guy an ace cop or what? Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> SO, Westbrook, who supposedly found Oswald's wallet at the Tippit scene, raced over to the Texas Theater, but DID NOT call Oswald by name, despite having a wallet with Oswald's photo ID in his possession? This makes no sense. Crime scenes are closed off for HOURS. It's highly doubtful to me that Westbrook could have found the wallet, found the jacket, inspected the area, and taken a number of statements in the 20-30 minutes or so from his earliest arrival at the Tippit scene to the Oswald arrest. I suspect Bartlett and Westbrook returned to the crime scene and that they received word of Oswald's name while there. Do we know for fact when the TV station took its footage? They would have to have been on the scene pretty fast to have got that footage before the Oswald arrest.

As to Hosty's assertion the wallet was found at the Tippit scene, I must warn fellow researchers NOT to trust the written words of writers like Hosty, usually working with ghost writers, when it comes to elements of the assassination that they personally did not witness. Most of the actual participants of the assassination know less about the assassination than the average researcher on this forum. (And think about how often we are wrong!) By way of example, both Leslie Midgely, who led CBS on 2 (or is it 3) investigations into the assassination and John Connally assert in their various memoirs that the magic bullet was found in the limousine. Are we to assume from this that both men were aware that the SS found the bullet and placed it on the stretcher? No. Neither man asserted such a thing (although I believe that is what happened.) They (or their ghost writers) just remembered it wrong.