The Amazing Crime-Solving Arrest Capabilities of the Dallas Police Department

[Mervyn Hagger]

I saw this card, noted the time and the charges and wondered if it is genuine. After all, when Lee Harvey Oswald was brought into the Dallas Police Department he claimed that no one had told him that the crimes written on this card were the crimes he had been arrested for. But within one hour, the Dallas Police Department has solved two murders and arrested the lone suspect. Simply amazing police work. 🤔Not.

[David Von Pein]

Mervyn,

The written section at the bottom of that arrest card showing the "other details of the arrest" was quite obviously not written at 1:40 PM (the time noted at the top of the card). Those details had to have been placed on that card at a time considerably later than 1:40. In fact, there's no way that anything on that card was written as early as 1:40 PM, because Oswald wasn't even arrested in the theater until about 1:50 PM, and much of the information shown on the card wasn't confirmed by the Dallas police until much later than 1:40.

Therefore, given the above time factors, this statement made by Mervyn Hagger — "But within one hour, the Dallas Police Department has solved two murders and arrested the lone suspect. Simply amazing police work. Not" — is not a fair or accurate statement at all.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Mervyn Hagger]

46 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Mervyn,

The written section at the bottom of that arrest card showing the "other details of the arrest" was quite obviously not written at 1:40 PM (the time noted at the top of the card). Those details had to have been placed on that card at a time considerably later than 1:40. In fact, there's no way that anything on that card was written as early as 1:40 PM, because Oswald wasn't even arrested in the theater until about 1:50 PM, and much of the information shown on the card wasn't confirmed by the Dallas police until much later than 1:40.

 

Thank you for your comment David. I am only responding to what is on the card and not what is not on the card. What is on the card is a date and a time and a person and an arrest. Might I suggest that in responding that I am only using the same approach that you advocate? In other words what is = is, and what is not = is not. Surely this is both an academic and legal approach to this issue? I have absolutely no 'inside' knowledge to add to that card, and neither do you. Or am I mistaken? My interest in this subject is peripheral. I was drawn here due to a study of broadcasting and ships. I did not begin with a theory about the murder of JFK. Therefore I intend to continue following the trail of hard evidence that was created at a specific moment in time; at a specific location, and by a specific person. 

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Thank you for your comment David...

FYI -- I just now edited my last comment in order to add the last paragraph.

 

[David Von Pein]

10 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I have absolutely no 'inside' knowledge to add to that card, and neither do you. Or am I mistaken? My interest in this subject is peripheral. I was drawn here due to a study of broadcasting and ships. I did not begin with a theory about the murder of JFK. Therefore I intend to continue following the trail of hard evidence that was created at a specific moment in time; at a specific location, and by a specific person. 

But as far as that particular "Arrest Card" is concerned, we cannot possibly know exactly what time (or even what day, for that matter) that arrest report was written out. (I know of no specific info in the Warren Commission volumes that gives us that precise information. Do you?)

But one thing I do know for certain (based on logic and common sense) is this --- that arrest report most certainly was NOT written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22/63. Not even close. It was filled out much later than that.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Mervyn Hagger]

58 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Mervyn,

The written section at the bottom of that arrest card showing the "other details of the arrest" was quite obviously not written at 1:40 PM (the time noted at the top of the card). Those details had to have been placed on that card at a time considerably later than 1:40. In fact, there's no way that anything on that card was written as early as 1:40 PM, because Oswald wasn't even arrested in the theater until about 1:50 PM, and much of the information shown on the card wasn't confirmed by the Dallas police until much later than 1:40.

Therefore, given the above time factors, this statement made by Mervyn Hagger — "But within one hour, the Dallas Police Department has solved two murders and arrested the lone suspect. Simply amazing police work. Not" — is not a fair or accurate statement at all.

 

David, based upon the information on that card and nothing else, please explain why my comments are "not a fair or accurate statement at all". Surely that statement contradicts your own standard approach of accepting what is on the record and not what is not on the record but which might be placed on the record by someone who desires to create their own narrative? As Sergeant Friday used to say "Just the facts", that is what I am interested in, not speculation. Doesn't that put us on the same page?

[Mervyn Hagger]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But as far as that particular "Arrest Card" is concerned, we cannot possibly know exactly what time (or even what day, for that matter) that arrest report was written out. (I know of no specific info in the Warren Commission volumes that gives us that precise information. Do you?)

But one thing I do know for certain (based on logic and common sense) is this --- that arrest report most certainly was NOT written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22/63. Not even close. It was filled out much later than that.

 

David you are contradicting your own approach to hard evidence and rewriting a forensic document to suit your own interpretation of that document because it does not support what you are claiming. Unless of course you are claiming that the document is false and did not originate with the Dallas Police Department. If you are, then please supply supporting evidence.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

David, based upon the information on that card and nothing else, please explain why my comments are "not a fair or accurate statement at all".

[...]

David you are contradicting your own approach to hard evidence and rewriting a forensic document to suit your own interpretation of that document because it does not support what you are claiming. Unless of course you are claiming that the document is false and did not originate with the Dallas Police Department. If you are, then please supply supporting evidence.

Mervyn, are you really suggesting that this arrest report was written at 1:40 PM Dallas time on November 22nd?

You surely aren't seriously advocating such an absurd position regarding that DPD arrest report....are you? Because it couldn't be more obvious that that report was filled out much later than 1:40. (As I mentioned before, Oswald wasn't even in custody until 1:50 PM!)

As to the possibility of the arrest report in question being a fake document, I really don't know for sure. But unlike a lot of conspiracy promoters, I'm not a person who is constantly claiming that documents have been manufactured by the authorities in order to frame the so-called patsy named Oswald. Therefore, I have no good reason to believe it's a phony document.

As for the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police Department at the bottom of the arrest report, I agree 100% with those conclusions. Based on the evidence, Oswald did, indeed, kill JFK and Officer Tippit.

But I'm not contradicting my own approach to "hard evidence", Mervyn. And the arrest report isn't really "hard evidence" anyway. It's merely a brief report providing us with the opinion of the people at DPD who were at that time processing and evaluating the "hard evidence" in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases.

I'm merely using my common sense to evaluate the timing of when the Oswald arrest report was created (which you don't seem to be factoring in at all). Given all the information we have concerning the gathering of the physical evidence against Lee Oswald, plus the "time" factors of when the Dallas police became aware of certain things concerning Oswald, I think it's safe to say that that arrest report was filled out much later than 1:40 PM on Nov. 22.

Now, you might want to argue that the Dallas police shouldn't have been so bold as to place this definitive statement on their Oswald arrest report:

"This man shot and killed President John F. Kennedy and Police Officer J.D. Tippit."

But, based on the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt that was collected within the first few hours after both Kennedy and Tippit were murdered, such a statement can, indeed, be looked upon as a wholly accurate one.
 

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

David you are contradicting your own approach to hard evidence and rewriting a forensic document to suit your own interpretation of that document because it does not support what you are claiming. Unless of course you are claiming that the document is false and did not originate with the Dallas Police Department. If you are, then please supply supporting evidence.

Can you explain what you mean by “hard”.   It is merely a document which was written after the fact.  

[Mervyn Hagger]

11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Mervyn, are you really suggesting that this arrest report was written at 1:40 PM Dallas time on November 22nd?

You surely aren't seriously advocating such an absurd position regarding that DPD arrest report....are you? Because it couldn't be more obvious that that report was filled out much later than 1:40. (As I mentioned before, Oswald wasn't even in custody until 1:50 PM!)

As to the possibility of the arrest report in question being a fake document, I really don't know for sure. But unlike a lot of conspiracy promoters, I'm not a person who is constantly claiming that documents have been manufactured by the authorities in order to frame the so-called patsy named Oswald. Therefore, I have no good reason to believe it's a phony document.

As for the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police Department at the bottom of the arrest report, I agree 100% with those conclusions. Based on the evidence, Oswald did, indeed, kill JFK and Officer Tippit.

But I'm not contradicting my own approach to "hard evidence", Mervyn. And the arrest report isn't really "hard evidence" anyway. It's merely a brief report providing us with the opinion of the people at DPD who were at that time processing and evaluating the "hard evidence" in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases.

I'm merely using my common sense to evaluate the timing of when the Oswald arrest report was created (which you don't seem to be factoring in at all). Given all the information we have concerning the gathering of the physical evidence against Lee Oswald, plus the "time" factors of when the Dallas police became aware of certain things concerning Oswald, I think it's safe to say that that arrest report was filled out much later than 1:40 PM on Nov. 22.

Now, you might want to argue that the Dallas police shouldn't have been so bold as to place this definitive statement on their Oswald arrest report:

"This man shot and killed President John F. Kennedy and Police Officer J.D. Tippit."

But, based on the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt that was collected within the first few hours after both Kennedy and Tippit were murdered, such a statement can, indeed, be looked upon as a wholly accurate one.
 

David, you are really jumping through hoops on this issue.

I am not saying that it is a fake document, but I did ask you if you thought that it is a fake document - if the information on it has to be "interpreted" and not taken at face value.

I lived in the Metroplex and other areas of Texas and I fully appreciate and understand the way that the Texas legal system works - both in practice and in theory and the two are not one and the same.

But one thing is constant, and that is chain-of-custody documentation.

That document was created for official documentation purposes - long before the computer age - let alone 'smart phones'. Paper records were all that existed. Hearsay was still inadmissible under most circumstances.

But you do not believe in reading into documents words that are not there. In a sense, you are a strict constructionist: "It says what it says and nothing more and nothing less".

However, your response is to counter that approach by telling me what that document does not say, but what it should say if it is to be understood the way in which you want it to be understood.

That's all.

[David Von Pein]

18 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

However, your response is to counter that approach by telling me what that document does not say, but what it should say if it is to be understood the way in which you want it to be understood.

Oh for heaven's sake. Why all the fuss about something that couldn't be more obvious, Mervyn?

The majority of the arrest report was clearly written after the DPD had gathered enough evidence against Oswald to charge him with the two murders that the evidence shows he committed.

But let's hear your take on that arrest report, Mervyn. Do you truly think the DPD had all that info about Oswald as early as 1:40 PM CST on 11/22? If so, let's see your proof.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Mervyn Hagger]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh for heaven's sake. Why all the fuss about something that couldn't be more obvious, Mervyn?

The majority of the arrest report was clearly written after the DPD had gathered enough evidence against Oswald to charge him with the two murders that the evidence shows he committed.

But let's hear your take on that arrest report, Mervyn. Do you truly think the DPD had all that info about Oswald as early as 1:40 PM CST on 11/22? If so, let's see your proof.

 

David, I am not the person who has amassed a huge number of recordings and documents about the events of November 22, 1963 relating to the murder of JFK, you are that person. But you insist that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone just as the Warren Report said. Case closed from your standpoint. But your problem is with the thousands of human beings who don't believe the Warren Report.

My interest comes into play, as Prince (now King) Charles once said when sitting on a sofa with his then wife Diana. He was talking to a TV interviewer and at one point he said he might as well throw a rock into a pond and watch the ripples in order to start a discussion. One of the many 'rocks' that were thrown in the Atlantic Ocean that caused enormous ripples that I have been following, was thrown by Gordon McLendon of Dallas. Without going into the reasons why I have been following Gordon McLendon and his many associates and the ripples they created, I will tell you that they figuratively overlap the ripples created by the death of JFK in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Notice, I did not say that the McLendon ripples overlapped those caused by Lee Harvey Oswald.

In following my own trail I have run into a lot of people with very fixed ideas who can become very abusive, just like some in context with this topic. So I am only interested in hard evidence, which is evidence that can be verified as being true. It does not mean looking at a document and seeing words that are not there.

So, I put the arrest document on line for all to see so that there cannot be any dispute about what I am referring to.

The bottom line is that is what it says that it is - unless you can prove that it is a fake.

I am not suggesting that it is a fake, but you are implying that it is not a true legal representation of fact, and in lay terms, that implies that it is a fake.

That's all.

[David Von Pein]

36 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I am not suggesting that it is a fake, but you are implying that it is not a true legal representation of fact...

Please explain how you came to that rather strange conclusion.

Is it because I utilized a little basic common sense to conclude that the document in question was not written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22 (as you seem to believe it was)?

 

[Paul Cummings]

10 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Please explain how you came to that rather strange conclusion.

Is it because I utilized a little basic common sense to conclude that the document in question was not written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22 (as you seem to believe it was)?

 

Or couldn't this be where the timeline started for the officer who wrote the report? (ie left at 1:40PM for Texas Theatre)

Edited August 16, 2023 by Paul Cummings

[Mervyn Hagger]

31 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Please explain how you came to that rather strange conclusion.

Is it because I utilized a little basic common sense to conclude that the document in question was not written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22 (as you seem to believe it was)?

 

David, I have not reached any conclusion, but your own response is indeed strange.

You are adamant that LHO acted alone to kill JFK and that the Warren Report is essentially correct.

You go after comments made by individuals who read interpretations into fuzzy photographs, or even the idea that JFK was shot from the front and not from the back and that the medical experts who say they saw that a large portion of the rear of his head was missing, are either making it up, mistaken, or were not there.

The same goes for the time it would have taken for LHO to go from the sixth floor and get away, is from your standpoint all perfectly reasonable.

The recording of the KLIF broadcast which you put on line is perfectly okay, even though it indicates that the police almost immediately knew who they were looking for, and the bizarre arrest in a movie theater is also just fine.

Everything is fine as far as you are concerned.

But it is not fine and the pieces just don't fit together the way that the Warren Report says that they do, which is what you agree with.

Now, when I bring to the attention of people on this Forum one document that is clearly self-evident, you say, no, no, no, it is not self-evident and I need to interpret it for you.

That is a contradiction.

So I asked you whether you thought that the document is a fake.

I did not say it is a fake.

I am asking you if you think that it is a fake because according to you, it does not mean what it says that it means and therefore David must interpret it for me so that I can agree with you.

That's not how courts work and its not how critical thinking in academic works.

That's all.