The wallet at the Tippit scene: a simpler solution?

[Michael Kalin]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

What are you on about acting like there is some deep mystery over the man’s identity who gave shell hulls to Poe?

The purpose is to separate fact from fiction. Your spin of Guinyard's testimony augments the latter. Guinyard testified that he was at the scene when Benavides' truck arrived.

The hulls are incidental. It's the claim that Benavides arrived in time to see the killer that lacks substantiation. See Leavelle's SOR & testimony.

Frank Cimino saw nobody except Mrs. M at the scene. Benavides was not quaking under the dashboard or having a strange interlude in the alley. He had not yet arrived.

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Frank Cimino saw nobody except Mrs. M at the scene. Benavides was not quaking under the dashboard or having a strange interlude in the alley. He had not yet arrived.

That does not mean Benavides was not there. Benavides tells of a certain brief period of time that he stayed in his truck before getting out of it, out of caution that the killer with the gun might return. When he did get out, according to his own and Bowley’s testimony he went to the police car radio to try to call for help but did not know how to work it. There was a brief period following the killing, therefore (by his account, and supported by Cimino’s) when Helen Markham was there but Benavides was not visible outside his truck. Cimino meanwhile, in his living room a block away went out in his front yard immediately after hearing the shots and as you note, tells of seeing one or two women, I.e. Helen Markham, but nothing corresponding to Benavides. But that’s because Benavides was not out of his truck yet. It is not evidence Benavides fabricated under oath that he was there, still in his truck. 

Benavides’ account of being there, seeing Tippit fall from being shot, then seeing the killer from the back of the killer from ca. 15 feet away going away from him, is supported by the corroborated fact that he handed shell hulls to officer Poe. It is corroborated by Bowley telling of him at the police radio callin. It is corroborated by Callaway telling of first trying to get Banavides to drive to chase the killer and Benavides refusing, whereupon Callaway got Scoggins the cab driver. And last but not least, his own testimony, and there is nothing that comes across as a fabricator. 

Benavides’ arrival in time to see Tippit fall from being shot and to see the killer leaving is supported by his testimony of the red car ahead of him who he named as would have been a witness, without knowing who or what that was. The identity of that red car and witness did not become known until years later, Tatum. 

And, Benavides knew where to find the gunman’s tossed shell hulls, which supports his account that he saw where the killer had tossed them as he was leaving and reloading.

There is no sound evidence Benavides was fabricating anything and all essential parts of his account ring true and most are corroborated. I believe his testimony likely from day one was considered “sensitive” simply because it was true and, when we do learn of his account a few months later for the first time in his WC testimony, it is not helpful to the identification of Oswald as that killer. 

The “block cut” hairline of the killer in the back of his head told by Benavides as what he saw from only ca. 15 feet away alone would be incendiary if it held up as true testimony, since if Benavides was right that killer could not have been Oswald. 

And so in addition to no positive evidence Benavides was making it all up, what would be the motive? Are you supposing Benavides was suborned to fabricate under oath? By whom? What motive, when his testimony (if Benavides is to be believed and was not mistaken) powerfully favors exoneration of Oswald in Tippit’s death, whom Leavelle and co. wanted so badly to have the evidence show he did it?

I read Ball’s questioning of Guinyard differently than you do. What I see is Ball asking leading questions based on preinterview of Guinyard with intent to impeach Benavides’ testimony. Guinyard already appears a little confused in his testimony of which side of the street the killer ran.

Note no followup to Benavides on that block cut rear hairline of the killer. That subject got changed real quick. 

Benavides’ testimony is like the fingerprints lifted from the top of the right front passenger door of the Tippit patrol car at the exact spot where the killer had leaned against that car talking to Tippit inside, about twenty minutes before those prints were lifted. In 1994, first published in 1998, those prints were found not to have come from Oswald. 

Signals in the air that the killer may not have been Oswald but someone else witnesses mistakenly identified as Oswald, who may have gone to the Texas Theatre next for the purpose of killing Oswald there.  But signals missed. And as in most specific items of cases, there are always possible alternative explanations (the fingerprints were left by someone else; Benavides was mistaken in what he said he saw from 15 feet away). And a third signal missed, the paper-bag revolver found on a downtown Dallas street the next morning which was covered up by Dallas Police and which may have been the true Tippit murder weapon for reasons discussed elsewhere. 

That is where I locate Benavides’ testimony in the larger scheme of things with the Tippit case. In a context of counter-signals, cognitive dissonance, to the easy closure of the case on Oswald in the matter of Tippit. Innocence Project genre considerations. 

[David Josephs]

23 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The “block cut” hairline of the killer in the back of his head told by Benavides as what he saw from only ca. 15 feet away alone would be incendiary if it held up as true testimony, since if Benavides was right that killer could not have been Oswald.

Sweet post there Greg.  The details of the Tippit scene is imo most influenced by the "witness seeing different things" problem like the movie Vantage Point...  Depends where you were and when.  And then who writes the report, is it signed, changed?

@Michael Kalin  Kinda interesting your comments given you weren't there and now that I check - Cimino's "statement" which was FBI offered, and the DPD archives for any statement he may have made to them...  comes up empty:

John F. Kennedy, Dallas Police Department Collection - 0 Matching Results
No Results Found
Your search for cimino didn't return any results.

Turns out his "statement" is an unsigned FBI document: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/cimino_f.htm and does not indeed say he does not see Benavides or his truck, but that he didn't see "anyone". 

How you can just state that the unseen man was not in his truck at the scene based on CIMINO's evidence is simply your commentary and has nothing to do with the other related facts.  Or maybe you can explain the comment with how the two items of evidence are connected and proves he wasn't there.

FRANK CIMINO, 403 East Tenth Street, Apartment 7, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was residing in an apartment at 405 East Tenth Street. He Stated that at around 1 p.m. he was at his apartment listening to the radio. He heard four loud noises which sounded like shots and then he heard a women scream. He jumped up, put on his shoes and ran outside the house, and a woman dressed like a waitress was out in front of his residence shouting, "Call the police". She also advised a man had just shot a police officer and stated he had run west on Tenth Street and pointed in the direction of an alley which runs between Tenth Street and Jefferson off Patton Street. He looked in this direction but did not see anyone. Be then walked over to the officer and saw he had been shot in the head. The officer was lying on his side with his head in front of the left front head light of his car. His gun was out of the holster and lying by his side. The officer moved slightly and groaned but never said anything that he could understand. About this time people came from all directions, and he walked up to the corner of Patton and East Tenth Street and looked through the alleyway but could not see a~one running up the alley. He then walked back to where the officer was being removed by am ambulance and then turned back to him apartment. He stated he was not acquainted with LEE OSWALD or JACK RUBY.

He added that around December 24, 1963, he will be leaving Dallas for a vacation but can be reached through his mother at 530 Fifteenth Street, Niagara Falls. New York.

on 12/3/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

By Special Agents HENRY J OLIVER AND DAVID H. BARRY Date dictated 12/4/63

You seem to forget this was a Conspiracy to convict a patsy.  The evidence will only skew in that direction if one only looks at the surface.  You gotta dig a bit to get to a more truthful explanation of the events.

I haven't gotten into this thread as the back-n-forth over these little details when the result of the Tippit murder and the Hidell ID are much more critical.   Oswald was already at the theater.  People don't want to believe Barbara, not much we can do.

K Croy, in the white hat at the Tippit scene, claims to be first "officer" on the scene.  He tools around for 30 mins then claims to just leave and go have a meal with his wife... no big deal, just JFK assassinated... 

Are you aware of what the ambulance driver said about the scene of the crime?

Covered the body with a royal blue coat???  

 

After being shot from the front, Tippit falls forward on his face, laying on his stomach.  Based on the Autopsy, one has to wonder how that shot to the head, as a last shot based on witness testimony, could have been accomplished given how he was found.

 

 

 

. Benavides was a fairly dapper guy.  Him noticing the hairline is not so out of context

 

 

 

[Michael Kalin]

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Turns out his "statement" is an unsigned FBI document: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/cimino_f.htm and does not indeed say he does not see Benavides or his truck, but that he didn't see "anyone". 

It was initialed by the Special Agents who filed the report. Do you expect an observer to identify those who were not observed?

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

How you can just state that the unseen man was not in his truck at the scene based on CIMINO's evidence is simply your commentary and has nothing to do with the other related facts.  Or maybe you can explain the comment with how the two items of evidence are connected and proves he wasn't there.

I have a feeling you did not read the preceding comments which take into account more than "two items of evidence." Now would be a good time to do so.

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

You seem to forget this was a Conspiracy to convict a patsy.

This imputation does not follow from anything I've posted in any thread on this forum, notwithstanding my present rejection of Benavides' tonsorial evidence for Oswald's innocence. Convincing me Benavides was at the murder scene when Tippit was killed will go a long way to changing my mind. So far the only "corroboration" is the Poe/Jez report that does not identify him. The Leavelle/Dhority SOR says he "did not see suspect." Take it from there, but first read the preceding comments to avoid further repetition.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Michael Kalin

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Michael Kalin said:

It was initialed by the Special Agents who filed the report. Do you expect an observer to identify those who were not observed?

I have a feeling you did not read the preceding comments which take into account more than "two items of evidence." Now would be a good time to do so.

This imputation does not follow from anything I've posted in any thread on this forum, notwithstanding my present rejection of Benavides' tonsorial evidence for Oswald's innocence. Convincing me Benavides was at the murder scene when Tippit was killed will go a long way to changing my mind. So far the only "corroboration" is the Poe/Jez report that does not identify him. The Leavelle/Dhority SOR says he "did not see suspect." Take it from there, but first read the preceding comments to avoid further repetition.

Do you mind if I ask - why are you trying to rewrite the way things happened by paraphrasing reports and testimony?

So an FBI SA signed the report... that makes it beyond reproach -  A true representation of the fact?  C'mon man.  No Mike I don't expect anyone to ID those who were not observed... By the very nature of how DB gets there and what he does, precludes CIMINO from seeing him...   (or saw him and didn't mention him). CIMINO didn't mention Jimmy Burt, didn't mention many people there within minutes...  not there either?

How can you conclude what you do without looking at all the evidence and what it actually says... not what YOU say it says.

The man did not say Benavides was not there.. I posted his statement above.  Show us which part of that convinces you DB was not there.  The rest of the evidence is discussed next:

Your "feelings" notwithstanding, I've been doing this a bit longer and more deeply than you and have fairly good recall.  There is nothing you've said or offered that has not been discussed 20 times.  The forum has a SEARCH function.

"Convincing me Benavides was at the murder scene when Tippit was killed will go a long way to changing my mind."    Very few things can be offered related to this case which is that unambiguous to allow it to "convince" anyone of anything.  One needs a bigger picture of the evidence.

From the available evidence I find it extremely difficult to conclude DB was not exactly where he said he was simply because people did not say or report what you want them to in order to convince you...  that would be your problem Mike... not ours.

So the sum total of the evidence he was NOT there is CIMINO and the SOR saying DB did not see the suspect?  Did you look at any other DB related reports?  Did you know his twin brother was shot and killed?

The LEAVELLE report associates Benavides with the used car lot
Wonder why Leavelle thought DB was an employee of the car lot?  Wonder why Poe talks of getting the shells from the same man who testifies to picking up shells and giving them to the police.

Maybe stop paraphrasing reports and link to them so people can see immediately what they say.  You're taking a variety of evidence that points to the man doing exactly as he said, and trying to invent a NEW scenario...
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337443/m1/3/?q=benavides

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338825/m1/1/?q=benavides 
This is LC Graves report on interviewing Calloway, Guinyard and Benavides at 501 W Jefferson - the car lot... 

You both fail to make a convincing argument he WASN'T there, and this tangent to the WALLET THREAD this is supposed to be has lost its way.   That you concentrate on the trivial when the WALLET, HIDELL, WESTBROOK, CROY and FRITZ are dead center in a part of the conspiracy to implicate, which involved advanced planning and covert cooperation between the FBI and DPD... in favor of arguing if DB was there...  thanks for moving the ball forward on Tippit

 

 

 

Known members of the  488th Reserve Military Intelligence Detachment 
Jack Crichton
George Lumpkin
Jack Revill
Pat Gannaway
William Westbrook
Frank Brandstetter
Jack Earnest
   Likely members of the 488th include:
Boise B Smith
Gerald Hill
Don Stringfellow

 

What would that look like Mike?  Something like this maybe?

Mr. BELIN -You almost got up to Denver and 10th heading west on 10th Street when you saw something?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I saw this police car.
Mr. BELIN - You saw a police car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Where was the police car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It was sitting about 4 or 5 feet from the curb and down about 2 houses from the corner of Patton Street.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Was it between Patton and Denver?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - On what side of East 10th, north or south?
Mr. BENAVIDES - On the south side.
Mr. BELIN - What direction was it headed?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It was headed east.
Mr. BELIN - What did you see then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Did you see the officer as he was getting out of the car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; I seen as he was, well, he had his hand on the door and kind of in a hurry to get out, it seemed like.
Mr. BELIN - Had he already gotten out of the car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - He had already gotten around.
Mr. BELIN - Where did you see the other man?
Mr. BENAVIDES - The other man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot. Actually I wasn't looking for anything like that, so I heard the shot, and I just turned into the curb. Looked around to miss a car, I think.
And then I pulled up to the curb, hitting the curb, and I ducked down, and then I heard two more shots.
Mr. BELIN - How many shots did you hear all told?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I heard three shots.
Mr. BELIN - You heard three shots?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir,
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when your vehicle stopped?
Mr. BENAVIDES - About 15 foot, just directly across the street and maybe a car length away from the police car.
Mr. BELIN - Would you have been a car length to the east or a car length to the west of the police car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - East of the front side of it.
Mr. BELIN - So your vehicle wouldn't have quite gotten up to where the Police car was?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No; it didn't.
Mr. BELIN - How fast were you going when you watched the policeman getting out of his car?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Oh, I imagine not maybe 25 miles an hour. I never did pay much attention to it.
Mr. BELIN - You say you stopped the car right away? Your vehicle, I mean?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir. I just didn't exactly stop because I just pulled it into the curb.
Mr. BELIN - Then you say you heard a shot and you then ducked?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. No; I heard the shot before I pulled in.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by David Josephs

[Michael Kalin]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Do you mind if I ask - why are you trying to rewrite the way things happened by paraphrasing reports and testimony?

The Leavelle/Dhority SOR stated that Benavides "did not see suspect."
The Poe/Jez report stated that "An unidentified witness...stated...that the suspect reloaded the gun as he ran across the church lawn."

Possibly inconsequential that the nearest church to the scene was a block away, but these reports otherwise contradict each other. While you may wish to believe from Leavelle's unsigned, undated Report on Officer's Duties that Benavides actually named Poe, it is very unlikely that he also said he was an eyewitness to the murder itself, or the DPD affidavit he gave on 11/22/63 would be extant.

Leavelle's Tippit murder case papers omit Benavides, delivering a heavy blow to his eyewitness credentials.  (My link to this material is broken and it's too big to attach.)

Edward H. Benavidez is not a factor. He was murdered on 2/16/65. The death certificate is attached.

Please make an effort to deal with the nuances of the event under consideration. If instead your goal is to trivialize the issue, better to concentrate on other matters of importance, leaving this to those who might wish to take a careful look at the murder scene.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Michael Kalin

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Michael Kalin said:

The Leavelle/Dhority SOR stated that Benavides "did not see suspect."

 

Can you sum up the significance of establishing one way or another that yet another "fact" offered initially -  what DB says and the other witnesses said is NOT TRUE and DB made it all up to appear as if he was there - or
he was actually there - and that makes a difference how?

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by David Josephs

[Michael Kalin]

14 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Can you sum up the significance of establishing one way or another that yet another "fact" offered initially -  what DB says and the other witnesses said is NOT TRUE and DB made it all up to appear as if he was there - or
he was actually there - and that makes a difference how?

No regarding Benavides because we don't know much about what he said initially, unless someone produces the DPD affidavit & FBI report of 11/22/63. Surmises don't count. No also to the other witnesses among whom there is no significant degree of unanimity that can be readily summarized.

The purpose is to peel back the layers of subornation & disinformation that plague this case.

[Tom Gram]

Random question. Has there ever been an attempt to isolate the background chatter on the Bowley transmission? It seems clear enough that it should be possible, but I don’t really know anything about audio processing. 

I ask because you can clearly hear a guy shouting the address, car number, etc. to Bowley. I’m not sure if this would be possible, but if you could isolate the voice of the guy on the tape I’m wondering if you could do a voice comparison with Benavides’ CBS appearance or something. 

From a quick google search, it looks like most AI tools for voice biometrics and identification aren’t very easy to get a hold of, but they do exist.

[David Josephs]

32 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

The purpose is to peel back the layers of subornation & disinformation that plague this case.

What effect does proving all the available evidence - most of which I posted with links as posters here don't seem to want readers to see the source materials from which they draw conclusions - about DB being there and the actions he took have on our understanding of the case?

You think DB had anything to do with the variable # of shells?
You think he did not talk to Poe?  Did not hand him the shells in a cigarette package per Poe/Hill?
How does DB relate to the 3 versus 2 shells as told by Hill v Poe which would add to 5 shells?

39 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

No regarding Benavides because we don't know much about what he said initially

Mr. BALL. And what happened after that?
Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338726/m1/1/?q=poe. 
"Unidentified witness handed Officer Poe two empty hulls..."

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338287/m1/1/?q=poe
Poe and Jez report 11/22  "Unidentified witness handed Officer Poe two empty hulls..."

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337443/m1/1/?q=poe
Leavelle "Officer Poe also told me someone had picked up two empty .38 hulls..."

15 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

If instead your goal is to trivialize the issue, better to concentrate on other matters of importance, leaving this to those who might wish to take a careful look at the murder scene.

Bulletin Mike - this issue is trivial.  There is nothing you have said or offer which shows any level of importance to the question of DB's presence.  You don't even theorize what the purpose might be for Poe, Jez and Leavelle all to make up a person at the scene, and then have that person corroborate the story.

If it looks, smells and sh!ts like a duck... it's a duck

Well, in 1967 he says exactly the same thing

(1) Domingo Benavides, The Warren Report: Part 3, CBS Television (27th June, 1967)
As I was driving down the street, I seen this police car, was sitting here, and the officer was getting out of the car, and apparently he'd been talking to the man that was standing by the car. The policeman got out of the car, and as he walked past the windshield of the car, where it's kind of lined up over the hood of the car, where this other man shot him. And, of course, he was reaching for his gun.

And so, I was standing there, you know, I mean sitting there in the truck, and not in no big hurry to get out because I was sitting there watching everything. This man turned from the car then, and took a couple of steps, and as he turned to walk away I believe he was unloading his gun, and he took the shells up in his hand, and as he took off, he threw them in the bushes more or less like nothing really, trying to get rid of them. I guess he didn't figure he'd get caught anyway, so he just threw them in the bushes.

[Michael Kalin]

52 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Bulletin Mike - this issue is trivial.  There is nothing you have said or offer which shows any level of importance to the question of DB's presence.  You don't even theorize what the purpose might be for Poe, Jez and Leavelle all to make up a person at the scene, and then have that person corroborate the story.

If it looks, smells and sh!ts like a duck... it's a duck

Put a lid on the poppycock. I said nothing about Poe, Jez and Leavelle making up a person at the scene.

The hulls are trivial. The fugitive's flight path is not. Ditto Benavides' status as murder eyewitness. The last is the bone of contention.

Take a closer look -- the ducks are shitting on your straw men.

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Put a lid on the poppycock. I said nothing about Poe, Jez and Leavelle making up a person at the scene.

The hulls are trivial. The fugitive's flight path is not. Ditto Benavides' status as murder eyewitness. The last is the bone of contention.

Take a closer look -- the ducks are shitting on your straw men.

What Straw Man would that be Mike?  You read the term Straw Man somewhere and wanted to try it out?.. I went back to read your posts here again... Lots of question and very few answers...  you appear genuinely confused over this "complicated situation".  You urged patience.

On 10/4/2023 at 5:15 AM, Michael Kalin said:

It's the claim that Benavides arrived in time to see the killer that lacks substantiation.

What's the point of the claim Mike... to show the DPD lied?  the FBI lied?  And somehow you think this is news 

Why is it you cannot address the real and circumstantial evidence I and others provided that shows he was there rather than play dumb and insulted?  You're doing a poor, half-assed job of making ANY point here Mike and having been here as long as I have, it's not hard to see when someone is in over their head.

One would think @Greg Doudna would be a little more bothered by the hijacking of the thread.  But then as I read again, this really never was about WALLETS, but Myers...

Second, it also is not Oswald's wallet for the two reasons Myers names: It would have been reported in DPD reports if it had been Oswald's.  

You really have to joking here.  Myers says?  Really?  Are you aware of the problems with the evidence, the DPD, the FBI and the documents left for us to see - the negative with the BYPs, we are told, were listed as "Miscellaneous" on Stovall's inventory. 

You want to believe the MINOX was Mr. Paines?  C'mon man. 

I've posted the Wallet evidence a few times now but I guess my rough exterior expectations that people stand behind what they post puts some off. 

You want to prove Bentley/Hill did not see a wallet in the car?
You want to DISPROVE Croy's statements and signed photograph?
"FIRST ON THE SCENE-                                    SA ROBERT M BARRETT
REMOVED OSWALD'S                                             DALLAS FBI
WALLET THERE TOO"

Doesn't really matter as I also showed you the FBI B1 report with the Wallet contents which are all Oswald... nothing HIDELL... then the CLEMENTS report with the photograph of the HIDELL SSS card with his photo on it... then the BOOKOUT report where the SSS Notice without his photo is now listed as being in the wallet while other items listed from CLEMENTS are gone.

It would have been reported in DPD reports if it had been Oswald's

So you are aware this is Myers doublespeak right?  The BYP negatives are not in the inventories offered by anyone taking items from Irving or Beckley...  So they weren't Oswald's?

The one key point to this entire thing then is "how do the HIDELL ID's come into being"?

When FBI agent Bob Barrett arrived at the scene he parked his car across from Scoggins' cab and walked toward Tippit's patrol car. Barrett explained, "I went on over there and Captain Westbrook was there with several of his officers .... .lt hadn't been very long when Westbrook looked up and saw me and called me over. He had this wallet in his hand. Now, I don't know where he found it, but he had the wallet in his hand. I presumed that they had found it on or near Tippit. Westbrook asked me, 'Do you know who Lee Harvey Oswald is?' And, 'Do you know who Alek Hidell is?' And I said, 'No, I never heard of them. " Westbrook then showed Barrett the wallet and the contents.  FBI agent James Hasty wrote in his book Assignment Oswald. "Near the puddle of blood where Tippit's body had lain, (DPD Captain) Westbrook had found a man's leather wallet. In it, he discovered identification for Lee Oswald, as well as other identification for Alek Hidell."

l'm adamant that there was a wallet in somebody's hand and (Westbrook) asked me if I knew who 'Lee Harvey Oswald' was and who 'Hidell' was." Barrett later told fellow agent James Hosty about the wallet and it's contents. Barrett told Hosty the wallet contained identification for both Lee Harvey Oswald and Alex Hidell. Barrett told Hasty that Captain Westbrook kept the wallet and thought that he had placed it in police property. 

The first police officer to arrive at the scene of Tippit's murder was reserve Sergeant Kenneth H. Croy. Croy was driving west on Colorado Blvd. when he reached Zang and heard the call that a police officer had been shot. Croy drove l/2 mile south and arrived at the scene as Tippit's body was being loaded into an ambulance. A civilian, who has never been identified, approached Croy and handed him a wallet which he (Croy) later gave to Sergeant Calvin Owens.53 53 Jones Harris interview of Kenneth Croy, Il/02/02.

WF AA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland shot film footage in which Captain George M. Doughty, Sergeant Calvin Owens, and Captain Westbrook can be seen handling or viewing the wallet. TIPPIT-It/IZ In one scene Sergeant Owens is holding a man's leather wallet in his right hand and showing it to Captain George Doughty. SA Barrett said, "The wallet was there. There's no getting around that."

Here are some screen shots of the broadcast showing the pistol and wallet in the hands of OWENS I believe.

The police learned about the jacket when an unidentified civilian told Sergeant Calvin Owens that the gunman had discarded his jacket in the Texaco parking lot.

As Walker was broadcasting the description of Tippit's assailant Patrolman Joe M. Poe and Leonard E. Jez arrived in a police car as Sergeant Calvin Owens, Sergeant Gerald Hill, Assistant D.A. Bill Alexander, and an unidentified man arrived in another car. Sergeant Croy, the first officer at the scene, approached Sergeant Owens and gave him the wallet that was given to him by the unidentified civilian

This is the only question related to Tippit/Hidell asked of OSWALD.  Fritz asked no questions about the Tippit murder according to interrogation reports/notes.

 

 

 

Posted earlier, this is the DB evidence you claim does not prove DB was there...  as if it matters.

A man was trying to use the radio in the squad car but stated he didn't know how to operate it.
/s/ T. F. Bowley

Mr. BENAVIDES - The gun was in his hand and he was partially lying on his gun in his right hand. He was partially lying on his gun and on his hand, too.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I don't know if I opened the car door back further than what it was or not, but anyway, I went in and pulled the radio and I mashed the button and told them that an officer had been shot, and I didn't get an answer, so I said it again, and this guy asked me whereabouts all of a sudden, and I said, on 10th Street. I couldn't remember where it was at at the time. So I looked up and I seen this number and I said 410 East 10th Street.
Mr. BELIN - You saw a number on the house then?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes.

... (IOW - DB was not using the radio correctly and could only hear what was coming thru)

Mr. BENAVIDES - Then he started to--then I don't know what he said; but I put the radio back. I mean, the microphone back up, and this other guy was standing there, so I got up out of the car, and I don't know, I wasn't sure if he heard me, and the other guy sat down in the car.

Mr. BALL. And what happened after that?
Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338726/m1/1/?q=poe. 
"Unidentified witness handed Officer Poe two empty hulls..."

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338287/m1/1/?q=poe
Poe and Jez report 11/22  "Unidentified witness handed Officer Poe two empty hulls..."

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337443/m1/1/?q=poe
Leavelle "Officer Poe also told me someone had picked up two empty .38 hulls..."

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by David Josephs

[Michael Kalin]

17 hours ago, David Josephs said:

What Straw Man would that be Mike?

A straw man was referenced in my preceding comment.

Quote

You don't even theorize what the purpose might be for Poe, Jez and Leavelle all to make up a person at the scene.

Misleading & dishonest to bemoan my failure to theorize about an argument I did not make.

Why this endless fulmination? All engendered by a narrow issue that came up earlier between Don Willis & me. It was off topic but our discussion turned in that direction. Dropping it is OK by me if that's what Greg wants.

Your conduct qualifies as a #2 in the Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation:

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

If you want to focus on the vastly broadened scope introduced by your side issues why not start a new thread? I might even dare to contribute...

One thought to keep in mind. What's trivial to you may be important to me. I'm not obliged to follow your guidance in anything.

 

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

One thought to keep in mind. What's trivial to you may be important to me. I'm not obliged to follow your guidance in anything.

Most assuredly MK...  It would still be nice if you offered a point or hypothesis since you seem so well versed on the subject and it appears so near and dear to your interests.  I happen to have written on quite a large variety of subjects over the years and luckily have had the time to research deeply my specific areas of interest.

This is the first I've encountered someone so adamant about DB and the Tippit murder... so I ask you explain your POV and we are left with you negating DB's testimony, 1967 video and the reports of those 3 men. Poe, Jez, Levealle reports and somehow you included CIMINO for "not" saying anything related to DB... 

Why do you think there is ambiguity in the evidence related to DB's presence a Tippit's murder scene and of the evidence I have offered showing from a few different vantage points DB was indeed there and did interact with a number of people.

What about the evidence convinces you they are all fabricating his presence, and why would they be doing that?

FWIW, I post new and old things all the time and get challenged quite often.  Defending one's conclusions using logic and solid arguments remains one of the cornerstones of this place.  

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction

MK, I did refute the argument you were offering with links, quotes and documents.  You offered a Straw Man in response to a discussion about Wallets where you are arguing about the existence of DB at the scene.

What did that have to do with the thread's original subject?

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Why this endless fulmination? All engendered by a narrow issue that came up earlier between Don Willis & me. It was off topic but our discussion turned in that direction. Dropping it is OK by me if that's what Greg wants.

YOU turned it.   And then get upset with me when I ask you explain what you said.

Do you have any thoughts on the wallet?

3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

If you want to focus on the vastly broadened scope introduced by your side issues why not start a new thread? I might even dare to contribute...

If you want to discuss DB... start a thread or add on to the many already here.

There are 19 pages of posts with BENAVIDES

As for the Wallets...  Here is 2005 "Oswald's Wallet" thread:  there were 5 wallets identified

Posted July 31, 2005
On the WALLETs...all of the above and more.

I wrote articles for the Fourth Decade in the 90s on the wallets.

John Armstrong has the best answers in HARVEY&LEE, pages 862-868.

There were at least four. DPD suppressed photo below. Also, wallet

at Tippit scene.

Jack