Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tipping Point serialization now in progress on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Thank you Sir, I will share that with Rex asap. 

I envy people who can type on a phone at all, I have enough of a problem with a full sized keyboard....even a laptop keyboard gets to me if I shift position, have to reset myself and lock my hands into position on the keys.

I am not alone!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is all kind of dizzying.  I finished part 3 tonight.  

From part 2.  

I  don't remember reading about Oswald and the FPCC in Dallas in March 1963 before.  Oswald was going to buy DRE Bonds?  With what, he could barely support himself.  The Jeff Morley Revelation 63 link is something of his I've never read, important.  As well as the Hardway link.  If the DRE had a file on Oswald in the summer of 63, the CIA knew most of what was in it, jmo.

From part 3.

I didn't know Odido was close to Manolo Ray.  Ruby May have met with Rosselli in Miami in mid October 63?  A potential Martino - Ruby connection?

The chronology is fascinating.  

November 11. Ruby's first prescription for nerve pills, soon refilled.  *

11/12, 10 days before the assassination.  A contingency plan for the death of a US diplomat or politician regarding a military knee jerk and media control.  

On the 14th Gruber, passing through Arkansas, visits Ruby for the first time on 10 years.  

On Sunday the 17th before the assassination Gruber, Ruby and Rosselli maybe met in Vegas.

111/22 Ruby met with an IRS * informant to watch the fireworks, I thought I'd read before at the corner of Commerce and Houston.  Slightly back from the fireworks, on the corner of the Post Office parking lot (important?). 

That last bit about Ruby's only call out on 11/22 besides his sister being to Gruber.  Gruber told him he had to hit Oswald?

Dizzying.

 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

On the first point, my best guess is that the part of the conspiracy plan that was to link in Oswald with Castro and Cuba began to fall apart when Oswald himself realized he had been manipulated...that may have been when he walked away from the TSBD or equally likely when he heard the talk on the bus that JFK had actually been shot...it certainly had gone off the rails when he heard about more in the Taxi and was asked to be dropped off away from his apartment house.

 

Larry,

You and I have talked about this, but I'll throw it out here.

If Oswald was living on Beckley under an assumed name, and he had the taxi drop him off several blocks away from his rooming house, he did not want to be tracked back to that rooming house.; but someone knew he lived there.

Will Fritz told the WC that "some officer" had told him out in the hall that Oswald lived on Beckley before Fritz went in to talk to Oswald for the first time.

When Fritz and Sims and Boyd left the TSBD after learning that Tippit had been shot, they left the TSBD all hell bent for leather on their way to Irving. However, Boyd speaks of a mysterious stop at Bill Decker's office on their way back downtown. All of a sudden, things changed. Fritz, Boyd and Sims stayed in the office, and at 2:40 PM, W.E. Potts, B.L. Senkel and Lt. E.L. Cunningham were dispatched to 1026 N. Beckley. Potts wrote in his after-action report (Box 2, Folder# 9, Item# 32) http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box2.htm that after he finished taking some affidavits, Fritz dispatched them to the Beckely St address at 2:40 and they arrived at Beckley at 3:00PM.

According to housekeeper, Earlene Roberts, when they arrived, the police were inquiring after a Harvey Lee Oswald.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/robertse.htm

Sheriff Decker's file on the assassination, given to the Warren Commission lists the assailant's name as "Harvey Lee Oswald"

(12H51) (CE 5323) Deposition of Sheriff Decker dark brown heavy folder with a label on the outside: Harvey Lee Oswald.

Oswald knew he had been set up the minute Fritz walked into the office and began asking him about Beckley.

Mr. BALL. Some officer told you that he thought this man had a room on Beckley?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; so then I talked to him and I asked him where his room was on Beckley.

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry H., interesting reading as always from you. Here is one nitpick. You write in footnote 320: "During the 1990's, John Armstrong obtained a copy of a DPD document showing an evidence receipt which contained numbered references to "two half dollar bills" which had been recovered from Lee Oswald's billfold."

I found John Armstrong's webpage article with a photo of handwritten notes identified in a caption as "Photoreproduction from Dallas Municipal Archives and Records Center, City of Dallas, Texas". However nothing in that label identifies that as having anything to do with the Kennedy assassination or the arrest of Oswald. In other words, assuming the photograph of those notes and that first label or the information in that first label is authentic, it could come from any case records in the entire Municipal Archives, and nothing links it to Oswald.

A second, separate caption is clearly not the wording of DPD but appears to be authored by someone unidentified who has asserted a statement and an interpretation: "Found in Oswald's wallet when he was arrested were two halved dollar bills with different serial numbers. Were these designed to be used as a contact with the owner of the other two halves? What possible explanation could be used to determine their reason for being in Oswald's possession?"

Since the notes of those dollar halves are not present in any of the records of what was found on Oswald, and there is no documentary evidence or testimony that it ever did exist as part of the Oswald case, is it accurate to claim that the reference to those items "recovered from Lee Oswald's billfold" was from a DPD evidence receipt?

Is it accurate to write: "Researcher John Armstrong found DPD material (which he copied and has made available) that documentation of the two bill halves existed within the Dallas Police at one point in time – only to disappear from the record by the time the relevant document reached the National Archives."

I know you follow that by citing qualifications and uncertainty, but why suggest it as an argument in your narrative at all? There is no evidence it is true, and there is no good reason to suppose it is true. Why cite it at all? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three comments, so I'll try to take them in sequence so as not to lose anyone or myself:

Ron, I certainly think the chronology is compelling and I intend it to be the starting point for a deeper dive into the to operational tracks - the tactical attack and the Oswald track.  I also think the micro analysis of Ruby's changes in behavior (which is presented in more detail in  SWHT) demonstrates that Ruby received an order which reinforced his shock and made it clear that he was an accessory to the President's murder and that both the and his family were at risk if Oswald went to trial or worse yet started to talk too much.  The call to Gruber shows every sign of desperation  - Gruber himself was never really investigated from a criminal standpoint. He was merely questioned, pretty gently if you read the transcript.

Steve, certainly I think that Oswald's residence was known, certainly to the FBI subversive desk (likely Heitman) given that I think he was under some level of observation in Dallas. Whether they backtracked him from contacts at the Harlandale House or other observations is a good question. As to the name issue, as we have discussed that remains an open mystery to me - what does seem very clear, as you posted, is that Oswald was aware the his residence was known and suspected that either law enforcement or the others that he had been in contact with would show up looking for him, quickly.

Greg:  Certainly I'm aware of all the controversy and online back and forth over the dollar bill.  I had read all the point/counterpoint and Rex challenged me on it as well (wearing his editors hat).  If Tipping Point was intended to go into a Court room or a legal case I would have left it out. 

However I think it illustrated a number of loose ends that remain mysterious - primarily related to potential items of evidence that got lost or misplaced inside DPD (or the FBI) when the word came down make things simple and literally to "lose" things that might raise questions.  I give other examples in the work, arguably this is one of the more questionable.  But its also quite mysterious (much like the reference to the Chief knowing all about Martino, the note which appears on the HSCA interview document).

It is also of particular interest since it would be a sign of "tradecraft" and indeed matches a similar practice we can document in use by the AMWORLD people - people I offer as persons of interest in regard to Oswald and the attack. That made it relevant enough to the story for me to at least mention it, but as you note I did give citations and cautions and everyone is free to toss it. 

Basically its in because I think it should be at least considered, and because if it were taken from Oswald it would be highly suggestive. 

Plus...I'm known to be pretty conservative for a conspiracy person but every once in a while I do need to channel by wild, speculative side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the best you could say is that it would be the right general direction, but it was noted early on that with a jog on that general  direction could also actually taken him to Jack Ruby's apartment.  LIFE or POST plotted that out in an article as I recall. 

His official route is plotted out by having at the Tippett shooting and then ending up at the theater, connecting the streets in between as if he were going there...but of course that assumes the theater was both his original and final destination.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry--I sure cannot see the logic of urging consideration of an item whose association with Oswald appears to have been literally created into existence out of thin air by assertion (John Armstrong does not claim he was told that association by anyone else or by anyone at DPD) ... because it would be interesting if it were true (lots of imaginary things would be interesting if they were true). Oh well. That aside, certainly there are actual issues of questionable DPD treatment of Oswald evidence, to which one more might be added and one taken away.

The one added relates to the Tippit killer's jacket and comes from an article which you may have seen on Dale Myers' Tippit blog, concerning a credible story from the daughters of Dorothea Dean of Dean's Dairy (http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/warren-reynolds-and-oswalds-jacket.html). As related by Mrs. Dean’s daughter, Mrs. Dean told of having seen the Tippit killer run past her store and go around the corner. She followed and saw the killer had abandoned his light-grey jacket on a tire rack in an alley out of public sight next to her store. She took the jacket back to her store and moments later, when police arrived in hot pursuit (some known to her), she gave the jacket to officers and told them where she had found it and what she had seen. However, Dallas police under Capt. Westbrook claimed to have found the jacket in a parking lot behind the building, although police reports did not identify which officer physically found it and picked it up. Though no one disputed that the jacket had been found in the parking lot, oddly no named officer could be identified to credit for that. Myers does a solid analysis of the Mrs. Dean story but argues that since the multiple DPD officers' reports of the jacket's find-spot clearly are correct, Mrs. Dean's story, handed down to her daughters all these years, cannot have been correct. Myers sees the two stories as contradictory, never considering that both stories may be true. That is, Dallas police, intent upon having correct chain-of-custody of evidence needed to convict the killer of their fellow officer, re-placed that jacket to be found and retrieved by officers, without contamination of chain of custody by having been picked up by the civilian. That is what I think happened based on the story of Mrs. Dean. The jacket was not invented, it did belong to the killer, but the way it was found was "improved" so as to have cleaner chain-of-custody as evidence in court in a future trial.

The story that can be dropped is the Oswald wallet at the site of the Tippit killing. Until recently I too thought that was Oswald's wallet. But I am sure now that was in error, and after thinking the wallet issue through I think I know now whose wallet that was. First, it was not Tippit's wallet for reasons brought out in Myers’ book on the Tippit killing. Second, it also is not Oswald's wallet for the two reasons Myers names: differences between it and Oswald's wallet in photos indicate the two wallets though similar are not the same, and, it would have been reported in DPD reports if it had been Oswald's. But there WAS a wallet, because it was filmed by WFAA TV news. The positive argument for that being Oswald's wallet is FBI Special Agent Barrett plus two other DPD officers are reported to have said that was Oswald's wallet, three witnesses in all. Well, those vanish upon analysis. Barrett never claimed to have seen that the wallet was Oswald's. He inferred that it was because Westbrook asked Barrett questions about Oswald and Hidell after Barrett had seen Westbrook looking at that wallet. Officer Leonard Jez, often claimed to be a confirming witness, Myers shows that no on-the-record evidence exists that Jez said that, and that it is fairly clear that the sole hearsay claim that Jez did is not correct (see 2013 edition of Myers’ With Malice, footnote 1081, pp. 783-84). Nothing there beyond a late hearsay claim that is more likely wrong than right. So that is two gone out of three. 

That leaves officer Croy, and he consistently until late in life never identified the wallet as Oswald’s. Myers reports that according to a 2009 interview of him with Croy, Croy said, “I recovered Tippit’s pistol and a billfold that I think had seven different I’s in it. I looked at the IDs. None of them had any photographs or the name Lee Harvey Oswald on them”. But later Croy, evidently persuaded by arguments that it was Oswald’s wallet, belatedly claimed credit for finding Oswald’s wallet, in a signed photo inscription to Rookstool reported in 2013. In assessing this Croy’s earlier statements take priority over his later photo autograph inscription. But what is the explanation of that wallet, whose existence was filmed but which none of the police reports ever mentioned? Myers after discussing the facts ends by leaving the wallet's ownership unexplained, says he does not know. That may be an honest answer but it is not very satisfying.

The only one who has that wallet ID correct so far to my knowledge has been David von Pein: the wallet was Ted Callaway's. Callaway is the used car manager and ex-Marine who heard Tippit shot, came to the scene, took the dead Tippit's service revolver and with Scoggins the cab driver took off in hot pursuit circling the blocks looking for the killer. However another car of two private security persons, Ken Holmes and Bill Wheless, suspicious, forced the cab to a stop a couple of blocks to the east of the Tippit scene. Callaway stepped out with Tippit's revolver in his hand, whereupon the alarmed Holmes, thinking Callaway may be the killer, drew his own firearm and ordered Callaway at gunpoint to disarm. Holmes took possession of Tippit's revolver and then drove back to the Tippit scene, while Callaway and Scoggins returned to the scene separately in their vehicle. 

What happened, it can be reconstructed, is that Callaway was not only divested of Tippit's revolver but also of his wallet/identification, by Ken Holmes at the point of disarming Callaway. It is not reasonable or likely that, suspecting Callaway was the killer and taking the revolver away from Callaway at gunpoint, Holmes would not also have obtained Callaway's ID before letting Callaway and Scoggins drive away by themselves. He would have told Callaway he was taking both the revolver and Callaway’s wallet to the scene to turn over to police, and instructed Callaway also to return to the scene. Callaway in that tense moment, trying to explain to Holmes holding him at gunpoint that he was innocent and looking for the killer himself and that the revolver in his hand was officer Tippit’s, in response to demand would have handed over his whole wallet with one hand to Holmes, which Holmes kept pending turning both items over to the police. 

When Holmes and Wheless returned to the scene of the Tippit killing where DPD officers were present, Holmes handed Tippit's revolver and Callaway's wallet to an officer, which would be Croy who said he had been given the wallet "by someone", “by a civilian”. That would be Ken Holmes the one who had just disarmed Callaway. In the WFAA news video a closeup is filmed of an officer’s hands holding both Tippit’s revolver, and the wallet, at the same time, highly suggestive that those two items had been received at the same time and from the same source, Ken Holmes. The revolver had been taken from Callaway, and the wallet also. Callaway returned by separate vehicle to the scene at the same time as Holmes, and, officers realizing Callaway was not the killer, Callaway would have been handed back his wallet. The brief handling and inspection of Callaway's wallet by DPD officers did not appear in any police report evidently because it was not deemed important to report, relevant to the Tippit killing.

In Myers’ 2009 interview of Croy, Myers reported (without Myers catching the significance of this), “Croy also claimed…Tippit’s pistol…was found with the billfold a short distance from the scene” (p. 356). That represents Croy’s own uncertainty (Croy somehow thought Oswald had tossed both items and someone had found them together!), but the key point is the association of the Tippit revolver, from the same source, together with, handed in together with, at the same time, the wallet. Both came from Callaway!

Myers said he did consider but rejected Callaway as owner of the wallet, but it is puzzling why. The only reason Myers gives is that Myers claims Callaway denied the wallet was his followed by quotations from Callaway in support of that. However none of the statements from Callaway provided by Myers is a denial that I can see. Myers seems crucially to misunderstand a statement of Callaway referring to turning Tippit’s revolver over to private security person Ken Holmes as if that is Callaway’s account of what happened after Callaway returned to the Tippit scene (p. 364). In fact this is Callaway’s version of the Ken Holmes encounter. Myers quoting Callaway: 

“’When I got out of the cab,’ Callaway recalled in a 1999 interview, ‘I didn’t hesitate a bit like a lot of guys would. I walked straight to this plainclothes officer [= Kenneth Holmes!—not a DPD officer at the Tippit scene!--gd] and I said, “Here’s the officer’s pistol.” He said, “OK, thank you very much.” After that I walked right back to the lot.’”

From other incidental mentions in Myers' study it is clear that the otherwise talkative Callaway did not like to volunteer or emphasize or talk about that embarrassing scene of being disarmed at gunpoint by Ken Holmes, when telling his story. (By one way of looking at it, Callaway going after the killer like John Wayne had almost gotten himself shot due to stupidity.) But contrary to Myers’ interpretation, there is no denial from Callaway that the wallet was his that I see, as distinguished from Callaway skipping over in his telling some of what happened that was embarrassing. Nor do I see any record in Myers' book that Callaway ever was directly asked the wallet question. So this is what I believe is the simple and mundane solution to that wallet issue at the scene of the Tippit killing. It was Callaway's wallet because it must be and no other explanation makes sense. 

But what about the witness of FBI Special Agent Barrett, from whom the story of the Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene originated? Myers, respectful of Barrett personally and attesting to Barrett’s high credibility as witness testimony, nevertheless concluded (because Myers saw no other choice from his interpretation of the evidence) that Barrett cannot have been correct in the timing of his memory in saying he had been asked by Westbrook about the names Oswald and Hidell at the Tippit killing scene. However Barrett is credible and I believe his account should be accepted and not rejected. Barrett was asked by Westbrook if he recognized the names of Oswald or Hidell (Barrett did not). That followed Barrett observing DPD officers including Westbrook briefly examining the Callaway wallet. But the Callaway wallet was not the source of Westbrook's question about the names Oswald and Hidell, though that is what Barrett mistakenly assumed (an easy assumption to make).

While the Callaway solution to the wallet identification mystery solves one range of problems, it unexpectedly and surprisingly raises another: for it now raises the question of what was Westbrook's source of information concerning the names Oswald and Hidell, when he asked his friend FBI agent Barrett about those names. This was before Westbrook saw or knew of Oswald's wallet removed from Oswald after his arrest at the Texas Theater. Westbrook must have been told the names Oswald and Hidell at the TSBD before he left to go to the scene of the Tippit killing, even if how exactly that occurred is not clear. Barrett's testimony, once the wallet identity is cleared up that the wallet was not Oswald's, now becomes new evidence of DPD knowledge in the timeline. Westbrook took the first opportunity upon seeing his friend FBI Special Agent Barrett at the Tippit killing scene, to ask Barrett if he recognized or knew anything about either of the two names. It was the juxtaposition of Barrett having been asked this by Westbrook just after the wallet episode that caused an understandable but erroneous conclusion on Barrett's part that Westbrook was asking because he had gotten those names from the wallet.

I was at a conference in the UK in 1996 on an unrelated topic and by accident one morning ate breakfast in the wrong room at the venue where breakfast was being served for another conference which I discovered was of police chiefs. I realized after sitting down at a table that I was sitting with municipal police chiefs. I got to talking with one across from me and mentioned a recent case, a scandal, in New York state where I had recently come from, of a police lab having been found to have routinely cooked evidence and a number of criminal convictions had been reopened as a result. I asked if that sort of thing happened in the UK. His answer: "Oh, you mean 'stitching someone up'? Sure, happens all the time."

I think Oswald was "stitched up". But I do not think the dollar bill halves, or the wallet at the Tippit scene, had anything to do with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK establishment folk speaking to the media have often referred to confirmed conspiracies as ‘a stitch up’ as it gives the newspaper headlines a phrase to print that avoids confirming the existence of a single conspiracy. “Oh, that wasn’t a conspiracy, that was a stitch up” has sometimes been said, with the difference between the two presumably being that folks who perform a stitch up are having a good chuckle while they do it - I’m in stiches, ho ho ho - while folks who carry out a conspiracy are more grimly serious. And since folks looking serious while they carry out a conspiracy is the sort of thing you might see in the movies, it surely can’t occur in real life, whereas every prankster with an accomplice buddy has performed many stitch ups, so since that’s a joke we can all acknowledge it exists. I’m still waiting to hear how the massive UK Aestablishment and media cover up of Jimmy Saville’s crimes was a stitch up, but I’m sure the BBC or Guardian will let me know eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say, there are a number of items of questionable items of evidence not to mention items with broken or controversial chains of evidence.  At this point in time everyone has their favorites and in most cases one each of those has one or more people who offer detailed counter arguments about them.  Your post on the wallets is a perfect example of how complex such things get.

I'm happy to leave Oswald as "stitched up; ..you've made your point on the dollar bill and I understand it. I did offer citations so readers could follow up on those same challenges.  In turn I offered my logic and reasons for including mention of it in the previous post, so I'll leave it at that.

What I would also like to do is is elevate the discussion a bit and offer the following points for discussion - I consider them key and perhaps should have been more direct in calling them out as my goals for Tipping Point:

a) Identify a series of credible sources that are vetted and consistent sources with information about the conspiracy, b) identify a very specific motive behind the attack in Dallas as well as the group of individuals who shared that motive. c) identify the source of the Dallas plot within the CIA, d) identify a critical time frame for the attack, and d) delineate the two tracks in the Dallas conspiracy - the primary track of aborting the secret talks which were about to begin with the Castro regime and the secondary track of associating the attack with Castro and/or his supporters.

 

 

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand the view put forward in 'Tipping Point' there was a planned cover up, and a cover-up that became necessary. I think David Phillips was quoted as saying Oswald made a mistake, and Martino is referenced in 'Tipping Point' as having acted to cause a change of plan. This rings true. I can see evidence of preparation for a cover-up (Martino seemed prepared for example) but also there were obvious signs of cover-up on-the-hoof (The 'mystery-man' photo debacle) to shoe-horn Oswald into his new role.

Tipping Point mentions the two briefing board events. Does this indicate the author is persuaded that the Z film was altered? or is he willing to provide another explantaion for these events?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddy, my take is that the original look at the Z film gave a very convincing evidence of shots from multiple directions including the front and that the briefing boards which were secretly shown to top leadership including the CIA director supported that view.  Honestly most people looking that the Z film now intuitively have that impression.

In fact that impression is so great that LIFE even published a  nonsensical article talking about JFK turning to look towards the TSBD when  he was shot.  There was simply no doubt that there had been at least one shot from the front.  However that impression had to be minimized in the public coverage and a second set of story boards created to sell the long nut shooter.

As to whether certain frames were later altered to conceal the nature of the real hole in the rear of the head, I'm open to that sort of obfuscation but I have also seen two presentations (one by Robert Groden just last month) which illustrate a shadow effect on the head and still show rather obvious evidence of an actual hole.  So basically I'm convinced the hole is there, I'm uncertain whether it was actually altered in the film to obscure it or whether by playing with exposures it was minimized when put into print.  

But to answer your question, my view is that the second set of story boards certainly was crated with frames selected to obscure the fact of multiple shooters - just as the autopsy report was reworked multiple times to obfuscate the same thing.  And that was known at the top of NPIC, which explains the strong reaction when it was learned the first set had not been immediately destroyed and was still in deep storage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Larry--I sure cannot see the logic of urging consideration of an item whose association with Oswald appears to have been literally created into existence out of thin air by assertion (John Armstrong does not claim he was told that association by anyone else or by anyone at DPD) ... because it would be interesting if it were true (lots of imaginary things would be interesting if they were true). Oh well. That aside, certainly there are actual issues of questionable DPD treatment of Oswald evidence, to which one more might be added and one taken away.

The one added relates to the Tippit killer's jacket and comes from an article which you may have seen on Dale Myers' Tippit blog, concerning a credible story from the daughters of Dorothea Dean of Dean's Dairy (http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/warren-reynolds-and-oswalds-jacket.html). As related by Mrs. Dean’s daughter, Mrs. Dean told of having seen the Tippit killer run past her store and go around the corner. She followed and saw the killer had abandoned his light-grey jacket on a tire rack in an alley out of public sight next to her store. She took the jacket back to her store and moments later, when police arrived in hot pursuit (some known to her), she gave the jacket to officers and told them where she had found it and what she had seen. However, Dallas police under Capt. Westbrook claimed to have found the jacket in a parking lot behind the building, although police reports did not identify which officer physically found it and picked it up. Though no one disputed that the jacket had been found in the parking lot, oddly no named officer could be identified to credit for that. Myers does a solid analysis of the Mrs. Dean story but argues that since the multiple DPD officers' reports of the jacket's find-spot clearly are correct, Mrs. Dean's story, handed down to her daughters all these years, cannot have been correct. Myers sees the two stories as contradictory, never considering that both stories may be true. That is, Dallas police, intent upon having correct chain-of-custody of evidence needed to convict the killer of their fellow officer, re-placed that jacket to be found and retrieved by officers, without contamination of chain of custody by having been picked up by the civilian. That is what I think happened based on the story of Mrs. Dean. The jacket was not invented, it did belong to the killer, but the way it was found was "improved" so as to have cleaner chain-of-custody as evidence in court in a future trial.

The story that can be dropped is the Oswald wallet at the site of the Tippit killing. Until recently I too thought that was Oswald's wallet. But I am sure now that was in error, and after thinking the wallet issue through I think I know now whose wallet that was. First, it was not Tippit's wallet for reasons brought out in Myers’ book on the Tippit killing. Second, it also is not Oswald's wallet for the two reasons Myers names: differences between it and Oswald's wallet in photos indicate the two wallets though similar are not the same, and, it would have been reported in DPD reports if it had been Oswald's. But there WAS a wallet, because it was filmed by WFAA TV news. The positive argument for that being Oswald's wallet is FBI Special Agent Barrett plus two other DPD officers are reported to have said that was Oswald's wallet, three witnesses in all. Well, those vanish upon analysis. Barrett never claimed to have seen that the wallet was Oswald's. He inferred that it was because Westbrook asked Barrett questions about Oswald and Hidell after Barrett had seen Westbrook looking at that wallet. Officer Leonard Jez, often claimed to be a confirming witness, Myers shows that no on-the-record evidence exists that Jez said that, and that it is fairly clear that the sole hearsay claim that Jez did is not correct (see 2013 edition of Myers’ With Malice, footnote 1081, pp. 783-84). Nothing there beyond a late hearsay claim that is more likely wrong than right. So that is two gone out of three. 

That leaves officer Croy, and he consistently until late in life never identified the wallet as Oswald’s. Myers reports that according to a 2009 interview of him with Croy, Croy said, “I recovered Tippit’s pistol and a billfold that I think had seven different I’s in it. I looked at the IDs. None of them had any photographs or the name Lee Harvey Oswald on them”. But later Croy, evidently persuaded by arguments that it was Oswald’s wallet, belatedly claimed credit for finding Oswald’s wallet, in a signed photo inscription to Rookstool reported in 2013. In assessing this Croy’s earlier statements take priority over his later photo autograph inscription. But what is the explanation of that wallet, whose existence was filmed but which none of the police reports ever mentioned? Myers after discussing the facts ends by leaving the wallet's ownership unexplained, says he does not know. That may be an honest answer but it is not very satisfying.

The only one who has that wallet ID correct so far to my knowledge has been David von Pein: the wallet was Ted Callaway's. Callaway is the used car manager and ex-Marine who heard Tippit shot, came to the scene, took the dead Tippit's service revolver and with Scoggins the cab driver took off in hot pursuit circling the blocks looking for the killer. However another car of two private security persons, Ken Holmes and Bill Wheless, suspicious, forced the cab to a stop a couple of blocks to the east of the Tippit scene. Callaway stepped out with Tippit's revolver in his hand, whereupon the alarmed Holmes, thinking Callaway may be the killer, drew his own firearm and ordered Callaway at gunpoint to disarm. Holmes took possession of Tippit's revolver and then drove back to the Tippit scene, while Callaway and Scoggins returned to the scene separately in their vehicle. 

What happened, it can be reconstructed, is that Callaway was not only divested of Tippit's revolver but also of his wallet/identification, by Ken Holmes at the point of disarming Callaway. It is not reasonable or likely that, suspecting Callaway was the killer and taking the revolver away from Callaway at gunpoint, Holmes would not also have obtained Callaway's ID before letting Callaway and Scoggins drive away by themselves. He would have told Callaway he was taking both the revolver and Callaway’s wallet to the scene to turn over to police, and instructed Callaway also to return to the scene. Callaway in that tense moment, trying to explain to Holmes holding him at gunpoint that he was innocent and looking for the killer himself and that the revolver in his hand was officer Tippit’s, in response to demand would have handed over his whole wallet with one hand to Holmes, which Holmes kept pending turning both items over to the police. 

When Holmes and Wheless returned to the scene of the Tippit killing where DPD officers were present, Holmes handed Tippit's revolver and Callaway's wallet to an officer, which would be Croy who said he had been given the wallet "by someone", “by a civilian”. That would be Ken Holmes the one who had just disarmed Callaway. In the WFAA news video a closeup is filmed of an officer’s hands holding both Tippit’s revolver, and the wallet, at the same time, highly suggestive that those two items had been received at the same time and from the same source, Ken Holmes. The revolver had been taken from Callaway, and the wallet also. Callaway returned by separate vehicle to the scene at the same time as Holmes, and, officers realizing Callaway was not the killer, Callaway would have been handed back his wallet. The brief handling and inspection of Callaway's wallet by DPD officers did not appear in any police report evidently because it was not deemed important to report, relevant to the Tippit killing.

In Myers’ 2009 interview of Croy, Myers reported (without Myers catching the significance of this), “Croy also claimed…Tippit’s pistol…was found with the billfold a short distance from the scene” (p. 356). That represents Croy’s own uncertainty (Croy somehow thought Oswald had tossed both items and someone had found them together!), but the key point is the association of the Tippit revolver, from the same source, together with, handed in together with, at the same time, the wallet. Both came from Callaway!

Myers said he did consider but rejected Callaway as owner of the wallet, but it is puzzling why. The only reason Myers gives is that Myers claims Callaway denied the wallet was his followed by quotations from Callaway in support of that. However none of the statements from Callaway provided by Myers is a denial that I can see. Myers seems crucially to misunderstand a statement of Callaway referring to turning Tippit’s revolver over to private security person Ken Holmes as if that is Callaway’s account of what happened after Callaway returned to the Tippit scene (p. 364). In fact this is Callaway’s version of the Ken Holmes encounter. Myers quoting Callaway: 

“’When I got out of the cab,’ Callaway recalled in a 1999 interview, ‘I didn’t hesitate a bit like a lot of guys would. I walked straight to this plainclothes officer [= Kenneth Holmes!—not a DPD officer at the Tippit scene!--gd] and I said, “Here’s the officer’s pistol.” He said, “OK, thank you very much.” After that I walked right back to the lot.’”

From other incidental mentions in Myers' study it is clear that the otherwise talkative Callaway did not like to volunteer or emphasize or talk about that embarrassing scene of being disarmed at gunpoint by Ken Holmes, when telling his story. (By one way of looking at it, Callaway going after the killer like John Wayne had almost gotten himself shot due to stupidity.) But contrary to Myers’ interpretation, there is no denial from Callaway that the wallet was his that I see, as distinguished from Callaway skipping over in his telling some of what happened that was embarrassing. Nor do I see any record in Myers' book that Callaway ever was directly asked the wallet question. So this is what I believe is the simple and mundane solution to that wallet issue at the scene of the Tippit killing. It was Callaway's wallet because it must be and no other explanation makes sense. 

But what about the witness of FBI Special Agent Barrett, from whom the story of the Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene originated? Myers, respectful of Barrett personally and attesting to Barrett’s high credibility as witness testimony, nevertheless concluded (because Myers saw no other choice from his interpretation of the evidence) that Barrett cannot have been correct in the timing of his memory in saying he had been asked by Westbrook about the names Oswald and Hidell at the Tippit killing scene. However Barrett is credible and I believe his account should be accepted and not rejected. Barrett was asked by Westbrook if he recognized the names of Oswald or Hidell (Barrett did not). That followed Barrett observing DPD officers including Westbrook briefly examining the Callaway wallet. But the Callaway wallet was not the source of Westbrook's question about the names Oswald and Hidell, though that is what Barrett mistakenly assumed (an easy assumption to make).

While the Callaway solution to the wallet identification mystery solves one range of problems, it unexpectedly and surprisingly raises another: for it now raises the question of what was Westbrook's source of information concerning the names Oswald and Hidell, when he asked his friend FBI agent Barrett about those names. This was before Westbrook saw or knew of Oswald's wallet removed from Oswald after his arrest at the Texas Theater. Westbrook must have been told the names Oswald and Hidell at the TSBD before he left to go to the scene of the Tippit killing, even if how exactly that occurred is not clear. Barrett's testimony, once the wallet identity is cleared up that the wallet was not Oswald's, now becomes new evidence of DPD knowledge in the timeline. Westbrook took the first opportunity upon seeing his friend FBI Special Agent Barrett at the Tippit killing scene, to ask Barrett if he recognized or knew anything about either of the two names. It was the juxtaposition of Barrett having been asked this by Westbrook just after the wallet episode that caused an understandable but erroneous conclusion on Barrett's part that Westbrook was asking because he had gotten those names from the wallet.

I was at a conference in the UK in 1996 on an unrelated topic and by accident one morning ate breakfast in the wrong room at the venue where breakfast was being served for another conference which I discovered was of police chiefs. I realized after sitting down at a table that I was sitting with municipal police chiefs. I got to talking with one across from me and mentioned a recent case, a scandal, in New York state where I had recently come from, of a police lab having been found to have routinely cooked evidence and a number of criminal convictions had been reopened as a result. I asked if that sort of thing happened in the UK. His answer: "Oh, you mean 'stitching someone up'? Sure, happens all the time."

I think Oswald was "stitched up". But I do not think the dollar bill halves, or the wallet at the Tippit scene, had anything to do with it. 

sorry this makes no sense; you reject the wallet as being Oswald's because of no testimony that anyone thought it was Oswald's; and yet you accept the wallet as Callaway's even though there is no testimony that anyone id'd it as Callaway's. So - absence of testimony is bad in one instance, acceptable in the next. Sorry, that doesn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Allen Lowe said:

sorry this makes no sense; you reject the wallet as being Oswald's because of no testimony that anyone thought it was Oswald's; and yet you accept the wallet as Callaway's even though there is no testimony that anyone id'd it as Callaway's. So - absence of testimony is bad in one instance, acceptable in the next. Sorry, that doesn't work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...