Oswald's Wallet

[Jack White]

Everyone here seems to be rushing off in too many wrong

directions regarding Tippit.

The Tippit killing remains a mystery, but John Armstrong

has come closest to solving the riddle in HARVEY&LEE.

Tippit's activities indicate a probable association with some

elements of the conspiracy, but not necessarily with others in

the department. His beat was Oak Cliff. The activities of

Lee and Harvey centered in Oak Cliff and Irving. He possibly

was acquainted with one or both of the Oswalds. His activities

after the assassination are very strange, even frenzied, as

he seemingly is searching for "someone" or something.

He was not expecting "trouble" when he stopped the pedestrian

on Tenth Street; he did not radio for backup; he did not

draw his revolver.

I have a feeling if we knew the solution to the Tippit mystery

we could solve the assassination as well.

Jack

Edited August 3, 2005 by Jack White

[Greg Parker]

In order to hide the existence of the wallet found at the Tippit site, Fritz, Hill, Bentley, and Westbrook, at the least, would have to be part of the plot.

Not necessarily, Pat. Bentley, for instance, only had to be persuaded to change his story later.

All cops.  All purported liars!

Again - those are your words and no-one elses in this thread.

Why WASN'T the jacket found by Westbrook conclusively linked to Oswald?  I don't know, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's because it was the actual evidence the DPD discovered...

Uh huh. And noone said it wasn't the evidence they discovered.

Westbrook, btw, may not have been the discoverer of the jacket. I believe he claimed another cop (whose name he couln't remember) gave it to him.

As pointed out earlier, the whole scenario espoused by so many on this thread is supported almost solely by Barrett's memory.

No it isn't.

He is Hosty's source, is he not? . How reliable is this man's memory? 

According to you, his short term memory must have been downright lousy -"forgetting" as he did, that he'd found two sets of ID when making his first statement.

How old was he when he made his statements?  Admittedly, I haven't spent the time on this others here have.  But I've read nothing to make me trust this man's word over a number of DPD officers,

One of whom, as I've pointed out, claimed - when finally asked about it in the late 90s, that it was indeed, Oswald's wallet that was found.

who would have no reason to lie.  Where can I find Barrett's statements to see what other claims he makes, in order to determine his credibility?

A google search on his name.

The other two pieces of the puzzle seem to be Postal's statement taken months after the assassination, by which time a number of conversations with police may have blurred togethe in her mind,  and some news footage of some cops inspecting something that may or may not be a wallet. (My wallet when opened certainly doesn't look like that.)

I agree with you about Postal. She comes across as a terrible witness.

I still think the evidence is far from convincing enough to assert that so many men would lie.  And the assertion that Tippit was selected for assassination by his superiors based upon his being slow is downright disgusting. 

I think you owe Robert an apology here. Robert didn't say this. In fact, it's not exactly what I said. either. Certainly not that he was selected for assassination- for any reason. I have some sympathy for what happened to Tippit. But a spade is a spade. His personnel file shows he wasn't sharp. He wasn't one of "the boys". You may think that Dallas cops were pristine cleanskins in 1963 - but that's living in Lala Land. As Jack pointed out, Tippit's movements were suggestive of his looking for someone. Was it Oswald he was looking for? Was his role to deliver Oswald to an airport? Was he killed for failing to pick him up - and a fear that he might now realise that he had been drawn into the assassination plot, and may spill what little he knew?

While so many here embrace JFK for his belief in civil rights and human dignity, it doesn't seem like this embrace of compassion and empathy has allowed them to acknowledge that even redneck southern cops care about their co-workers and have professional pride.

The DPD was monolith. I'm sure the vast majority fit your description.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Greg Parker

[Pat Speer]

As pointed out earlier, the whole scenario espoused by so many on this thread is supported almost solely by Barrett's memory.

No it isn't.

He is Hosty's source, is he not? . How reliable is this man's memory? 

According to you, his short term memory must have been downright lousy -"forgetting" as he did, that he'd found two sets of ID when making his first statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just went back and re-read the pertinent parts of Assignment: Oswald. Is it correct that this 1996 book, written by a man many conspiracists assume is a xxxx, is the only evidence that Barrett said what he said. Is it also correct that Barrett was the FBI agent in charge of investigating the Tippit killing, and that he never mentioned this second wallet in any of his reports? And that as a result of Hosty's 30 year-old memory of what Barrett said, people are willing to conclude that Fritz, Hill, Bentley, Westbrook and Barrett himself all covered up the existence of this wallet? I wonder if Hosty had said that Barrett said Oswald's fingerprints were all over the car, whether people here would swallow it with such gusto. Somehow I think not.

Edited August 3, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

On the point of who discovered the "Hidell" ID, Gerald Hill credits Bentley with that, while in the car on the way downtown.  CE Walker recalls nothing of the kind, only that there was such a "Hidell" card - "Just an identification card. I don't recall what it was." - once they got to the station.  Now, if Oswald was sandwiched in the back seat between Bentley and Walker, and Bentley discovered the "Hidell" ID and mentioned it loudly enough for Hill to hear it in the front seat [per Hill's testimony], how is it possible that Walker, on the other side of Oswald, didn't witness this?

Of course, it would be nice to get the straight goods from Bentley's testimony, but the man who actually found the "Hidell" ID doesn't seem to have been called to testify.  Another rather puzzling oversight.  None of Bentley's various contemporaneous statements or comments seem to include any admission that he was the one who found the "Hidell" ID, or even a mention of the alias. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But Bentley did tell Sneed years later, when he may very well have forgotten what he was "supposed to say,"

But, Pat, that's just the point. Whatever Bentley was perhaps "supposed to say," he didn't, when he had the chance. When Bentley first allegedly discovered the "Hidell" ID, he failed to mention this at any time.

So what did Bentley's report of the arrest say about the suspect's ID? "On the way to the city hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained the name.... I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's office to make a report of the arrest." The date of the report was December 3, or two weeks after the event, itself a rather disquieting delay in filing a report that itself stipulates he went to Westbrook's office to file a report immediately after the arrest. Perhaps he did write another report on 11/22/63 and nobody has been able to locate it in the past 42 years. Perhaps you will suggest that his memory was far sharper after 35 years than it was after 14 days? [i will attempt to upload the 2nd page of this report, which deals with the post-arrest trip downtown, so you can comb it for any mention of "Hidell" ID and let me know what you find.]

So, OK: Bentley failed to mention finding ID in Oswald's alias. But other officers did. Gerald Hill told the WC that Bentley had found the ID while en route to DPD HQ, but was uncertain about the name, recalling only that it was the same name that had been used to order the rifle. However, on the very day of the "Hidell" ID's discovery upon the suspect, mere hours after it occurred, here's what Gerry Hill told NBC TV:

HILL: The only way we found out what his name was was to remove his billforld and check it ourself; he wouldn't even tell us what his name was....

Q: What was the name on the billfold?

HILL: Lee H. Oswald. O-S-W-A-L-D.

Bentley's failure to remember the "Hidell" incident must have been contagious. Hill caught it fast, though he recovered in time for his testimony. CT Walker, as noted earlier, failed to hear anything about Hidell while sitting right beside Oswald when the ID was allegedly found in Oswald's wallet. Nevertheless, he told the WC that when they got to the DPD HQ, Oswald "was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A.J. Hidell on it."

Please avail yourself of the reports filed by Walker, and K.E. Lyons, and Bob Carroll and let me know if any of the five arresting officers mention anything about finding "Hidell" ID on the day of the event. Perhaps you can also suggest why all five had instant amnesia. You might also explain how it came to be that having had his wallet removed by Bentley, who reported that he gave it to Lt. Baker, Oswald seems to have had his wallet returned to him, even though he was still hand-cuffed with his hands behind his back.

Richard Stovall testified that he and Gus Rose were talking with Oswald prior to Captain Fritz commencing the interrogation. Stovall said that he asked Oswald his name, and Oswald told him "Oswald." Stovall noted that the suspect had his billfold and it included "Hidell" ID. At that point, Fritz entered and sent Stovall and Rose out to Irving to check the Paine home.

Five days after Stovall testified to these facts, Rose was called and asked about this series of events. Rose said that when he and Stovall asked the suspect his name, he replied "Hidell." Rose claimed that he found ID in the billfold in both names. Needless to say, the WC didn't trouble itself to reconcile the diametrically opposed testimonies of Stovall and Rose regarding what the suspect told them. But then, the same WC staff didn't seem to question the absolute absence in the DPD reports of any indication that the word "Hidell" was ever uttered on that day.

Helpful, but problematic corroboration came from another detective, Walter Potts, who told the Commission that soon after 2 pm he was dispatched to "go out to Oswald's or Hidell's or Oswald's room.... On his person - he must have had - he did have identification with the name Alex Hidell and Oswald." Potts claimed that when he got to the Beckley boarding house, he and and his fellow officers - which included Justice of the Peace David Johnston , who would preside over LHO's arraingments - were told by housekeeper Earlene Roberts and the Johnsons, who owned the house, that none of them knew "a Lee Harvey Oswald or an Alex Hidell either one." When questioned, Roberts and the Johnsons admitted having been asked about an "Oswald" but made no mention of "Hidell."

Interestingly, JP David Johnston was involved with police all day long, and in his own report referred to an Oswald alias - O.H. Lee - under which he'd rented his boarding house room. Despite having been present when Potts, et al, asked after Oswald or Hidell, Johnston too suffered from the contagious amnesia regarding that name.

Please refer to Seth Kantor's notes in the Commission volumes. You will note, as I mentioned several times previously, that police were quick to tell the media about the "OH Lee" alias in the mid-afternoon [about an hour after his arrest], but for some unknown reason neglected to mention "Hidell" until the mid-afternoon of the following day, by which time the rifle had been traced back to a "Hidell."

Pat, you seem awfully upset at my suggestion that the foregoing officers lied. Knowing you are a decent and even-handed man, perhaps you could explain to us an alternate rationale for the fact that none of those involved in this case seemed to have made any comments about, notes about, reports about, the "Hidell" name that would become so incendiary against Oswald once the rifle's journey became known. I look forward to your alternate scenario that explains the above omissions and glaring vacuum where "Hidell" should be.

that he took Oswald's wallet out and found the Hidell ID, and that he asked Oswald whether he was Oswald or Hidell,and that Oswald said "you find out the best you can!" (Aha! I found the quote I asked about earlier..)

And wouldn't it have been nice had Bentley bothered to put that in his report? Surely, 35 years later he might very well have told the truth, but you're the one who suggests that Barrett might be confused so many years after the fact, and that Julia Postal must have been confused only a few months after the fact. Why do you suggest that what confused others only sharpened the memory of a man who didn't mention "Hidell" at all when it happened?

In order to hide the existence of the wallet found at the Tippit site, Fritz, Hill, Bentley, and Westbrook, at the least, would have to be part of the plot. All cops. All purported liars!

Or, perhaps you contend they were all amnesiacs?

All conspiring to hide evidence that may have helped them find the actual killer of a fellow cop!

Pat, there was nobody to find. Oswald was in custody about the same time that Fritz would have taken possession of the Tippit crime scene wallet. Imagine his surprise when the suspect who had dropped his wallet at the crime scene still had one in his pocket. Huh?

And to what end? What was gained by hiding the wallet? Nothing.,

That's your contention. However, place yourself in Fritz's position. He has a suspect, caught with a loaded weapon. The suspect's name and face match the ID found in the crime scene wallet. Case closed. Except when arrested, the suspect still has a wallet on him.

Now, let's imagine a hypothetical exercise. Let's say that Fritz is the canny old bird that I know him to have been. If the crime scene wallet belongs to the suspect, then something in it must bear his fingerprints. So, let's just take a few things out of the crime scene wallet - preferably laminated such as the military card - and dust them for prints. If the suspect's prints are on the laminated ID, he must have been carrying two wallets. However, if the ID from the crime scene wallet bears none of the suspect's prints, the implication is clear: it was a throwdown left behind to implicate a man in his absence, not an artifact of the crime itself. Suddenly, the wallet goes from being iron-clad evidence of the suspect's guilt to an almost certain proof that the same suspect was being framed. Does that not qualify as something "gained by hiding the wallet?"

They could easily have said that Oswald threw it down to let them know he was responsible. After all, he went crazy that day when his wife wouldn't give him any and decided to kill the President, didn't he?

Pat, take a deep breath. Neither of the above wacky retorts are worthy of you, let alone Dallas police.

If they were willing to fake and lie to whatever extent necessary, then why DON'T the slugs in Tippit conclusively match Oswald's gun? Why WASN'T the jacket found by Westbrook conclusively linked to Oswald? I don't know, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's because it was the actual evidence the DPD discovered...

Well, Pat, now you seem to be arguing squarely against your own contention that you think Oswald did kill Tippit. This is akin to your asking us to disbelieve Barrett after 20-odd years, due to alleged memory problems, while nevertheless insisting we should believe Bentley after 35 years because his memory problem only lasted a few weeks. The logical contortions you've performed in this thread almost make me suspect that Tim Gratz has hijacked your login info. [That's intended to be a gentle joke, lest anyone get their knickers in a knot.]

As pointed out earlier, the whole scenario espoused by so many on this thread is supported almost solely by Barrett's memory.

Well, that and the monstrously huge vacuum where contemporaneous police reports, comments and information about Hidell should be, circa 11/22/63. Explain that vast hole and perhaps you'll be able to convince us that the film footage was of something other than a wallet; that Westbrook was as mistaken as Barrett; that Martha Moyer's interview with Leonard Jez never happened; that Fritz's decision to segregate the wallet was accidential; that the Commission's failure to ask any meaningful questions about the "Hidell" ID was just another of their multiple oversights, etc., etc., etc.

He is Hosty's source, is he not? . How reliable is this man's memory? How old was he when he made his statements?

How old was Bentley when he talked to Sneed? How reliable is that man's memory, given that he forgot to include his own historical tale in his own police report, and forgot to file it for two weeks, and forgot to expunge from his report his contention that he wrote his report on 11/22/63? This grasping at straws is a most peculiar floorshow for me to watch, Pat. I don't know about others here, but I've never read anything from you remotely resembling this, what did you call it... "snottiness?"

Admittedly, I haven't spent the time on this others here have. But I've read nothing to make me trust this man's word over a number of DPD officers, who would have no reason to lie. Where can I find Barrett's statements to see what other claims he makes, in order to determine his credibility?

Pat, please. Start at the beginning. Read the testimony and reports of the arresting officers. See if you can find anything about "Hidell" ID. When you cannot, perhaps you'll be sufficiently intrigued to discover why not.

The other two pieces of the puzzle seem to be Postal's statement taken months after the assassination, by which time a number of conversations with police may have blurred togethe in her mind, and some news footage of some cops inspecting something that may or may not be a wallet. (My wallet when opened certainly doesn't look like that.)

I still think the evidence is far from convincing enough to assert that so many men would lie.

Then explain why they were AWOL on the "Hidell" issue when it happened.

And the assertion that Tippit was selected for assassination by his superiors based upon his being slow is downright disgusting.

Sorry, Pat, but I can't claim credit for that one.

While so many here embrace JFK for his belief in civil rights and human dignity, it doesn't seem like this embrace of compassion and empathy has allowed them to acknowledge that even redneck southern cops care about their co-workers and have professional pride. I don't think Hoover, as piggish as he was, would allow for one of his men to be killed unnecessarily, and I don't believe Fritz and Curry were any different.

Fritz and Curry didn't kill Tippit, or have him killed. You keep drawing this artificial divide, and it doesn't hold water. You are implying that by hiding the wallet they let the real killer get away. By the time the "Hidell" ID began making its way into the Oswald wallet, it was being done to seal the case against a man already vilified for killing the President. You are suggesting they would have taken what alternate route in Tippit's memory? To deny that Oswald was guilty because of an excess wallet? Would they have shown up at his trial to explain to judge and jury that he couldn't have been the killer because of a spare wallet, but that they'd keep at it until they got their man?

The evidence collected at the TSBD was enough to convict Oswald--the Tippit killing was completely extraneous to the plot to kill Kennedy. Only a bad script writer would concoct a scenario whereby a cop is killed to frame a man who is already a fugitve from justice and wanted for the murder of the President of the United States. To what end?

Your presumption is based on the notion that Oswald was intended to be captured. Remove that unwarranted presumption, and you'll see what played out, but this is not necessarily what was planned. Had the conspirators known that Oswald would be arrested, the entire Tippit exercise would have been superfluous and redundant. But then they'd have to sacrifice the intended impression that Oswald was laughing on a beach in Cuba, sipping Cuba Libres and smoking Habanas. No flight from Redbird to Mexico City, no flight from there to Havana, no found luggage at the airport, no Castro complicity to speak of.

Perhaps Tippit WAS supposed to take Oswald to the airport, but then changed his mind, and Oswald shot him. Perhaps Oswald was with another man, and the other guy shot Tippit. I don't know. But what I do know is that to assert that Oswald was not even at the Tippit scene,

Who drove him there? He didn't have time to make it on foot, unless you're prepared to dismiss one credible witness to accommodate another.

and that someone framed him, and that all the eyewitnesses are wrong,

Which witnesses? The ones who ID'ed Oswald in the lineup, or those who refused to? You keep making claims about uniformity of witness opinion about the fleeing suspect that the record doesn't support. Why do you do that?

and that every piece of evidence connecting Oswald to the crime scene is fake,

What was it you just said above? Oh yes: "..why DON'T the slugs in Tippit conclusively match Oswald's gun? Why WASN'T the jacket found by Westbrook conclusively linked to Oswald?" Apparently, even you seem to think that something was faked.

and that every piece of evidence connecting Oswald to Hidell is fake,

Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate otherwise. By all means, Pat. I've been nothing but forthcoming with my hypothesis and the data on which it's based, while you've been nothing but petulant, demanding, and dismissive. Turn-about being fair play and all, please explain the mass amnesia that afflicted DPD regarding the purported discovery of the "Hidell" ID. Please explain to us why none of the "evidence connecting Oswald to the crime scene is fake." Please explain why "every piece of evidence connecting Oswald to Hidell is" genuine. Please explain what it is about Marina's testimony that demonstrates she was truthful about "Hidell" or anything else for that matter.

It is simple to dash off a few quick and bitter words that contribute nothing to the debate other than condescension. Far more difficult is to put forth a credible case for one's contentions. The floor is yours, Pat. Tell us something we don't already know.

and that even Marina lied about her knowledge of Hidell, is ridiculous. You might as well say that Oswald never even worked at the TSBD.

But, my resistance to this scenario is getting in the way of others sharing info. I don't want to pull a Gratz. Robert said that a wallet was sent ot the FBI some days after the other evidence. Was this a second wallet? Or the one found at the Tippit site? School me.

I don't think so, Pat. It's time for you to put up or shut up. You've made a number of assertions of dubious veracity, and I've asked you to explain a number of things that you haven't thus far. Before I'm willing to spend another few hours to "school" you, perhaps it's time you put your shoulder to the grindstone and did some of the heavy lifting to contribute more to the debate than taunting and sneering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

My prior post was too long/large to include the attachment of Bentley's memo. Here [one hopes] is the second page of that memo, dealing with the ride downtown and what Bentley apparently forgot transpired:

[sorry, but after repeated attempts to upload the doc in question, I must resort to asking others to click below.}

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/06/0636-002.gif

Edited August 4, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Ron Ecker]

I just went back and re-read the pertinent parts of Assignment: Oswald.  Is it correct that this 1996 book, written by a man many conspiracists assume is a xxxx, is the only evidence that Barrett said what he said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, it is not. As I stated earlier, Barrett and his statements should be dealt with in detail in Dale Myers's book With Malice, which is supposed to be the Bible (the Lone Nut Standard Version) on the Tippit murder. Does anyone have a copy of it? I don't.

Ron

[Jack White]

Bravo, Robert. A great listing of many of the things known

about Tippit and the LHO wallet. You are correct!

There is more to it, but you have a great start. But the

real place to start is with Tippit's activities of that day.

There is an unknown connection between Tippit, LHO,

and the assassination, in my opinion.

Like fellow cop Roscoe White, Tippit's true role is a mystery.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Yeah, Bravo, Robert, you really showed me...

Seriously, I believe you are the one who needs to put up. If I'm reading you right, you're saying a number of things that not only run counter to the evidence, but run counter to common sense.

1. That Oswald was not Hidell, and never used the name.

2. That there was no evidence that Oswald had a connection to Hidell prior to the discovery at Klein's.

3. That no one discussed Oswald's connection to Hidell before the discovery at Klein's.

4. That the Hidell card was added into the evidence AFTER the discovery at Klein's.

5. That everyone who ever said they saw the Hidell card before the discovery at Klein's is a xxxx and/or perjurer.

6. That everyone who failed to admit that a second wallet was found was a xxxx and/or perjurer.

Am I reading this correctly? Or are you at least willing to admit that Oswald WAS Hidell?

The Hidell identity goes back to New Orleans. Hidell was stamped on the mailers Oswald was handing out. Marina admitted she forged the Hidell name for her husband. If you're saying that Oswald was not Hidell,, then this adds a few more to your ever-growing colony of liars and conspirators, now doesn't it?

Robert Jones said he told Shanklin that Oswald was Hidell on the day of the assassination, before the rifle sales slip was ever found. Deke Deloach says he talked to Shanklin that night, and that Shanklin told him that Oswald used the name Hidell. If you're saying that there was no evidence linking Oswald to Hidell before the Klein's sales slip was found, then these men are all liars, too.

If, however, you're saying that Oswald was Hidell, and that for some reason it was considered expedient to fabricate evidence indicating as much, I must ask WHY??? If the conspirators were trying to link the rifle to Oswald, why not leave the wallet in the sniper's nest? The only thing that might make sense is that they were afraid the DPD would find Oswald before they did, and wanted to increase the odds that the DPD killed Oswald. So wham! kill a cop...throw down Oswald's ID.

Still, if the IDs were planted at the Tippit scene, why did the DPD not mention thisl ...when this would have convicted Oswald immediately in the public's eye? I fail to believe that the DPD's finding the Hidell ID at the Tipit site was so ewwwy scary that Fritz would deny the existence of this wallet, switch the Hidell ID into the other wallet, and convince several officers to lie about it. Oswald's having two wallets was not much weirder than much of the story the WC eventually settled on, e.g. Oswald smuggling a rifle into a building in a brown paper bag with sharp crease lines and no sign that a rifle was ever inside.

Or perhaps there was no Hidell ID at all on Friday; perhaps it was fabricated by the DPD afterwards. And then talked a whole bunch of people into lying about it. Is that what you're saying?

I jjust think it makes a lot more sense that the Hidell card was found on Oswald, per Bentley, per Hill, etc..

In fact, I'd find it surprising if Oswald, who'd at least had a taste of the intelligence game, DIDN'T have a fake ID on him, since he was trying to flee. Or do you think he was just out for a stroll? That he took the Hidell ID with him is to me an indication that he was unaware his rifle had been used in the killing. In this way, to me, the Hidell ID is evidence for Oswald's innocence in the killing of Kennedy. That the Tippit site was on a direct path to Ruby's place (and is precisely in the area a briskly-walking man would be if he left Oswald's rooming house at the time described by Mrs. Roberts) is just too much a coincidence, and is indicative that Oswald was indeed at the site, and was indeed part of a conspiracy. (Who knows? Maybe he realized he'd been set up and was going there to KILL Ruby!)

While admittedly I entered this debate unprepared and have argued out of my ass, not unlike Mr. Gratz at times, it is you who has based your whole theory on the statements of one or two witnesses, of questionable value, and has stacked their weak words against a mountain of evidence indicating Oswald was Hidell and the sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater, and that they discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter. Your insistence that the early reports should have mentioned the Hidell card is just that: your insistence. It could very well be that they were asked not to mention Hidell until the name could be thoroughly investigated; we have no way of knowing. For you to throw out the words of all these men, and decide they are all liars, based upon the words of Barrett, as remembered by Hosty, is to me an indication of your letting your bias get in the way of your intellect. I think you have more in common with Mr. Gratz then you would care to admit. As we all do, at times.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

Pat, who wrote:

"That the Tippit site was on a direct path to Ruby's place (and is precisely in the area a briskly-walking man would be if he left Oswald's rooming house at the time described by Mrs. Roberts) is just too much a coincidence, and is indicative that Oswald was indeed at the site, and was indeed part of a conspiracy. "

...has evidently never been to Oak Cliff and attempted the "BRISK OSWALD WALK" uphill

from Beckley to 10th and Patton and is not familiar with its degree of difficulty.

Also, his DIRECT PATH to Ruby's place is not accurate, as can be seen by the Mapquest

route below. I believe Ruby's was on Ewing near the freeway, and there are more direct

routes available.

Jack

PS...the Mapquest route is not the route LHO would have taken, since he left the

rooming house going north, not south. If he were going to Ruby's, the most direct

route was EAST TO EWING, and south to Ruby's. The flat map gives no idea of the

hilly terrain and the twisting streets of the route to Tenth and Patton from Beckley.

Edited August 4, 2005 by Jack White

[Greg Parker]

Please avail yourself of the reports filed by Walker, and K.E. Lyons, and Bob Carroll and let me know if any of the five arresting officers mention anything about finding "Hidell" ID on the day of the event. Perhaps you can also suggest why all five had instant amnesia. You might also explain how it came to be that having had his wallet removed by Bentley, who reported that he gave it to Lt. Baker, Oswald seems to have had his wallet returned to him, even though he was still hand-cuffed with his hands behind his back.

Robert

Yep. I think that wallet was made in Australia. Boomerang brand, I believe. Always returns.

Same thing happened after his August arrest according to Quigley's testimony. Quigley, you'll recall, interviewed Oswald on the Saturday, the 10th of August - the day after the arrest.

Mr. McCLOY. Did he have the membership cards in his possession at that time?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, sir; he did, sir. I think the last you will notice, in that last sentence he had in his possession both cards and exhibited both of them.

And a few questions later:

Mr. McCLOY. But it is important to have them because the name Hidell was in the handwriting--but these are membership cards purporting to be membership cards in the Fair Play for Cuba organization. Would you be able to identify these cards if you saw them, Mr. Quigley, as the ones that were shown in

Oswald's possession exhibited to you?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I don't believe I could truthfully say if you showed me a card,

these two cards now that those were the identical ones. From the description and the data that I have recorded I could say they were similar.

Mr. McCLOY. All right.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I don't just feel I could identify them. Bear this in mind, sir;

this material was evidence as far as the New Orleans Police Department was

concerned at the time, we couldn't take this material.

According to Quigley, he couldn't take the cards because it was material evidence being held by the NOPD. Somehow then, this evidence (which I'm assuming was in a wallet), made it's way from the evidence room back into Oswald's pocket sometime prior to Quigley's interview. How do we know? Because Quigley stated unequivocally in his report that "he [Oswald] had in his possession both cards and exhibited both of them."

It may be worth noting that Martello's memorandum on the August arrest was written post-assassination. Quigley's report was iadded onto a report by Milton Kaack. Kaack's report was written prior to the assassination, and we are left to take Quigley's word that his portion of that report was likewise written prior to that event - and not added on in say, the last days of November.

and some news footage of some cops inspecting something that may or may not be a wallet. (My wallet when opened certainly doesn't look like that.)

Pat

The cameraman who filmed the event was Ron Reiland. He also did the voice-over when it was telecast on WFAA. Reiland described it that news bulletin as a wallet.

1. That Oswald was not Hidell, and never used the name.

Pat

How did Col Jones' files come to reflect that "Hidell" was an Oswald alias, Pat? He testified before the HSCA that the file contained information received from New Orleans. Trouble with that is that Martello testifed that no NOPD did not do further investigaton on Oswald after his arrest. How would anyone in the NOPD know that "Hidell" was Oswald, and not a real person without investigating to find out? Kaack's report likewise does not reflect any investigation of who Hidell was, or whether it was just an alias used by Oswald. How then could the NO FBI ofice know if they didn't investigate it? In fact, isn't "alias" entirely the wrong word when applied to the FPCC cards? Even if those cards were Oswald's, he was not using them to present himself as Hidell. He allegedly was claiming Hidell was a real, separate person. Yet without any investigation, NO contacts of 112th MIG just knew it was an alias! Pretty clever, those spooks.

[Steve Thomas]

Robert,

The date of the report was December 3, or two weeks after the event, itself a rather disquieting delay in filing a report that itself stipulates he went to Westbrook's office to file a report immediately after the arrest.

This would have fallen right in that time period when the DPD was conducting an internal investigation into how Ruby got into the basement - an investigation that broadened out into a number of side investigations, including the shooting of J.D. Tippit.

Steve Thomas

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Yeah, Bravo, Robert, you really showed me...

Seriously, I believe you are the one who needs to put up. If I'm reading you right, you're saying a number of things that not only run counter to the evidence, but run counter to common sense.

Plainly, you are not reading me "right."  Immediately below, you have listed six points that you insist I have contended, and not one of them bears the slightest resemblance to anything I've said.  For a chap who began his contributions to this thread by admitting he hadn't really studied the evidence regarding this aspect of the case, perhaps you should not only do that, but re-read what I have asserted so that you can refrain from twisting my clearly stated words into something that is unrecognizable even to me.  Point by point:

1. That Oswald was not Hidell, and never used the name.

I've not said that.  I am not convinced that evidence for this is good, since it revolves solely upon the word of Marina Oswald, whom even you must admit - since she has - perjured herself.  Recall that when asked about this name after his arrest in New Orleans, Oswald didn't admit to being "Hidell," and referred to him in the third person.  If he thought it appropriate to distance himself from "Hidell" at that juncture, when it was virtually irrelevant, why would he bear patently bogus photo ID in that name when it was about to become singularly relevant, a fact that only he could know? 

2. That there was no evidence that Oswald had a connection to Hidell prior to the discovery at Klein's.

I've not said that.  As noted above, "Hidell" was apparent to authorities in New Orleans four months earlier. 

3. That no one discussed Oswald's connection to Hidell before the discovery at Klein's.

I've asserted precisely the opposite.  The name "Hidell" was discussed at the Tippit crime scene, where a wallet was found bearing ID in the name Oswald and "Hidell."  I just cannot find the faintest whiff in the contemporaneous statements of the arresting officers - or anything in the media record - to demonstrate that "Hidell" had anything to do with the wallet found upon Oswald.  I've invited you to find anything that proves otherwise, but you'd prefer to issue a blanket dismissal that this was impossible.  Well....?  What have you found to rebut my contention regarding the arrest wallet?

4. That the Hidell card was added into the evidence AFTER the discovery at Klein's.

That's the unavoidable inference one must draw, given the complete paucity of evidence that anybody involved with Oswald on 11/22 knew anything about "Hidell" on that date.  [Distinct from those at the Tippit murder scene.]  Again, I've invited you to prove otherwise.  Pore over the police reports in the archives, review the media interviews given by the key players, and tell me if you can find a single mention of "Hidell" prior to the tracing of the rifle to Klein's.

5. That everyone who ever said they saw the Hidell card before the discovery at Klein's is a xxxx and/or perjurer.

Not, Pat, actually that's your contention about Barrett, the man who did provide us with reason to believe the Tippit wallet contained ID for both Oswald and "Hidell."  I would also argue that Fritz knew about the "Hidell" ID on that date.  It's just that neither he nor any of the officers involved with Oswald's arrest thought to mention that name at any time on that day, or even in their reports filed substantially after the fact.  If you would care to postulate a reason for this massive vacuum where the name "Hidell" should be, I've invited you to provide it.  Feel free.

Also, since there seems to be a problem in translating from my English to your English, let me be excruciatingly clear.  I have at no time said that DPD personnel manufactured the ID, or claimed to have seen ID that they never did see.  My contention is that they were forced to later claim that "Hidell" ID found at the Tippit murder scene was actually found upon Oswald at the time of his arrest.  Had Fritz not segregated the Tippit crime scene wallet, it might have been an entirely different story.  But he did quarantine that wallet, as FBI evidence receipts clearly show.

6. That everyone who failed to admit that a second wallet was found was a xxxx and/or perjurer.

I've never said that, and have no basis for making such an assertion.  Hence, I cannot fathom a reason why you have invented this point.  Given that only a few personnel at the Tippit crime scene knew about that wallet on 11/22, and further given that Fritz took that wallet out of the evidence pool and kept it in his desk drawer for a further five days, the number of people who knew of its existence was rather limited.  

Am I reading this correctly?  Or are you at least willing to admit that Oswald WAS Hidell?

There is no doubt that Oswald "used" the name "Hidell."  There is no conclusive evidence that he used it as an alias. 

But, since you began this post by insisting that we argue with common sense, rather than against it, let me note that it was entirely counter to common sense for Oswald to order a weapon under that name through the mails, suggesting he'd prefer no trail between himself and that weapon, and then carry self-defeatingly, obviously bogus ID in that alias on the very day that he planned to use that weapon to kill the President.  If you can think of a common sense reason for him to do so, I'd like to hear it. 

The Hidell identity goes back to New Orleans.  Hidell was stamped on the mailers Oswald was handing out.  Marina admitted she forged the Hidell name for her husband.  If you're saying that Oswald was not Hidell,, then this adds a few more  to your ever-growing colony of liars and conspirators, now doesn't it?

Well, it adds one more name, and hers belongs on any list of JFK-related liars.  This is the same woman who immediately told the media that "Lee not own a gun."  Subsequently, according to her testimony, he not only owned one, but used it against General Walker, wanted to use it against Nixon [and would have done so were it not for her locking him into the bathroom from outside???], and used it to dry-fire around their home and in parks.  While anyone with a whit of compassion might understand why she changed her tune under duress, that she did so on this and a number of other salient points doesn't exactly enhance her status as a beacon of truth.  If she is your only witness on the "Hidell" issue, I don't envy your position, or place much credence in your argument.  You are free to disagree. 

Robert Jones said he told Shanklin that Oswald was Hidell on the day of the assassination, before the rifle sales slip was ever found.

Then surely there is a Shanklin-penned memo to this effect.  Perhaps you've found it and can share it with us.  By the way, the fact that two files are cross-referenced would indicate that there's a common connection between the two, certainly.  And there should have been, since the name "Hidell" was found on Oswald's person when arrested in New Orleans [though no such bogus ID in that name was found at that time.] 

Deke Deloach says he talked to Shanklin that night, and that Shanklin told him that Oswald used the name Hidell.  If you're saying that there was no evidence linking Oswald to Hidell before the Klein's sales slip was found, then these men are all liars, too.

Not necessarily.  Recall that it was FBI agent Barrett who was present at the Tippit crime scene, and saw ID that - while patently bogus - indicated Oswald and "Hidell" were the same guy.  If Barrett advised Shanklin of this, then the FBI SAC in Dallas had very good reason to believe it to be so, and to advise his superiors of that fact.  This in no way refutes my contention, but bolsters it.

If, however, you're saying that Oswald was Hidell, and that for some reason it was considered expedient to fabricate evidence indicating as much, I must ask WHY???  If the conspirators were trying to link the rifle to Oswald, why not leave the wallet in the sniper's nest? 

Entirely unnecessary.  Leaving the rifle behind was sufficient.  It would be traced back to Klein's, and from there to Oswald's PO box [delivery receipt - missing - contrary to USPS protocols] under the name "Hidell."  In the event of Oswald's absence rather than his arrest [which is what I argue was planned], the Tippit crime scene wallet would indicate that an armed and dangerous man who worked at the TSBD and ordered the rifle that killed the President had also killed a cop in making his escape.

Elsewhere, you asked why the rounds removed from Tippit don't match the Oswald handgun.  This only became problematic with Oswald's arrest.  Had he simply disappeared, as I think was the plan, there would have been no exemplar handgun against which to test the bullets.

The only thing that might make sense is that they were afraid the DPD would find Oswald before they did, and wanted to increase the odds that the DPD killed Oswald.  So wham! kill a cop...throw down Oswald's ID. 

Still, if the IDs were planted at the Tippit scene, why did the DPD not mention thisl ...when this would have convicted Oswald immediately in the public's eye? 

As you know, Pat, I've already argued that such a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene would have made the case against Oswald a virtual slam-dunk, in his absence.  When Fritz was confronted with a suspect still bearing a wallet, however, the existence of the Tippit-scene wallet smelled less like a true artifact of that crime than it did a setup to implicate the assassin.  Certainly, Fritz seemed to have balked for some reason, because he hid that "helpful" wallet in his desk drawer for a further five days.  I've told you why I think he did so.  If you have another rationale for his behaviour, I'm all ears.

I fail to believe that the DPD's finding the Hidell ID at the Tipit site was so ewwwy scary that  Fritz would deny the existence of this wallet, switch the Hidell ID into the other wallet, and convince several officers to lie about it.  Oswald's having two wallets was not much weirder than much of the story the WC eventually settled on, e.g. Oswald smuggling a rifle into a building in a brown paper bag with sharp crease lines and no sign that a rifle was ever inside.

Yes, but now you're suggesting that Fritz would have some way of predicting what a then-non-existent WC might conjure in its findings. 

Or perhaps there was no Hidell ID at all on Friday; perhaps it was fabricated by the DPD afterwards. And then talked a whole bunch of people into lying about it.  Is that what you're saying?

Pat, you're a clever man, as the majority of your posts illustrate.  I'm having a serious problem understanding why you are labouring so hard to make this issue so much more difficult than it needs be, by inventing for me things I've never suggested.

I jjust think it makes a lot more sense that the Hidell card was found on Oswald, per Bentley, per Hill, etc..

And because I far prefer a mundane explanation over a fantastic one, I'd love to join you in that belief.  Please demonstrate that any of the arresting officers ever said, wrote or commented in any way whatsoever about "Hidell" on the day that ID was allegedly discovered upon the fleeing suspect.  If you cannot - and you clearly can't - then please formulate a common-sense rationale for this rather massive omission, when all involved found it sufficiently probative to mention the "O.H. Lee" alias used to rent his boarding house room.

In fact, I'd find it surprising if Oswald, who'd at least had a taste of the intelligence game, DIDN'T have a fake ID on him, since he was trying to flee. Or do you think he was just out for a stroll?  That he took the Hidell ID with him is to me an indication that he was unaware his rifle had been used in the killing.  In this way, to me, the Hidell ID is evidence for Oswald's innocence in the killing of Kennedy.  That the Tippit site was on a direct path to Ruby's place (and is precisely in the area a briskly-walking man would be if he left Oswald's rooming house at the time described by Mrs. Roberts) is just too much a coincidence, and is indicative that Oswald was indeed at the site, and was indeed part of a conspiracy.  (Who knows?  Maybe he realized he'd been set up and was going there to KILL Ruby!)

While admittedly I entered this debate unprepared and have argued out of my ass, not unlike Mr. Gratz at times, it is you who has based your whole theory on the statements of one or two witnesses, of questionable value, and has stacked their weak words against a mountain of evidence indicating Oswald was Hidell and the sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater, and that they discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter.  Your insistence that the early reports should have mentioned the Hidell card is just that: your insistence.  It could very well be that they were asked not to mention Hidell until the name could be thoroughly investigated; we have no way of knowing.  For you to throw out the words of all these men, and decide they are all liars, based upon the words of Barrett, as remembered by Hosty, is to me an indication of your letting your bias get in the way of your intellect.  I think you have more in common with Mr. Gratz then you would care to admit.  As we all do, at times.

You are clearly intent upon demonstrating that by ... what did you call it? ... "arguing out of your ass."  You assert that one or two witnesses are of "questionable value" and they spoke only "weak words" relative to the "mountain of evidence indicating Oswald was Hidell" and the "sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater, and that they discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter."

Perhaps instead of presuming that whatever you say, all without the slightest attempt to footnote, must be the truth and thereafter characterizing contrary evidence as you'd like it to be considered, you'd be kind enough to do the following, which I've only asked you to supply a half dozen times now:

Please itemize the "mountain of evidence that Oswald was Hidell."  Not merely that "Hidell" was a name found upon Oswald's FPCC card, or that it was a name Oswald was asked about by NO PD and FBI upon his arrest; but that Oswald was Hidell.  You take this as a given.  Show us why.

Please provide the "sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater."  You assert that such testimony exists from "many others."  Please provide it, and we'll know what constitutes "many" in your definition.

Please provide your proof that the arresting officers "discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter."  I've already itemized my reasons for questioning their testimony [what little there is], and questioned the complete absence of the name "Hidell" from the contemporaneous record.  Perhaps you'd care to explain that vacuum for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[David G. Healy]

Yeah, Bravo, Robert, you really showed me...

Seriously, I believe you are the one who needs to put up. If I'm reading you right, you're saying a number of things that not only run counter to the evidence, but run counter to common sense.

Plainly, you are not reading me "right."  Immediately below, you have listed six points that you insist I have contended, and not one of them bears the slightest resemblance to anything I've said.  For a chap who began his contributions to this thread by admitting he hadn't really studied the evidence regarding this aspect of the case, perhaps you should not only do that, but re-read what I have asserted so that you can refrain from twisting my clearly stated words into something that is unrecognizable even to me.  Point by point:

1. That Oswald was not Hidell, and never used the name.

I've not said that.  I am not convinced that evidence for this is good, since it revolves solely upon the word of Marina Oswald, whom even you must admit - since she has - perjured herself.  Recall that when asked about this name after his arrest in New Orleans, Oswald didn't admit to being "Hidell," and referred to him in the third person.  If he thought it appropriate to distance himself from "Hidell" at that juncture, when it was virtually irrelevant, why would he bear patently bogus photo ID in that name when it was about to become singularly relevant, a fact that only he could know?

as a point of reference:

Among other identification cards in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest were a Selective Service notice of classification, a Selective Service registration certificate,23 and a certificate of service in the U.S. Marine Corps,24 all three cards being in his own name. Also in his wallet at that time were a Selective Service notice of classification and a Marine certificate of service in the name of Alek James Hidell.25 On the Hidell Selective Service card there appeared a signature, "Alek J. Hidell," and the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald.26 Experts on questioned documents from the Treasury Department and the FBI testified that the Hidell cards were counterfeit photographic reproductions made by photographing the Oswald cards, retouching the resulting negatives, and producing prints from the retouched negatives. The Hidell signature on the notice of classification was in the handwriting of Oswald. (See app. X, p. 572.) for more.... see below link

ARRB-Final Report Sept '98

http://www.fullgrowth.com/The_Assassinatio...hapter_4_02.htm

2. That there was no evidence that Oswald had a connection to Hidell prior to the discovery at Klein's.

I've not said that.  As noted above, "Hidell" was apparent to authorities in New Orleans four months earlier. 

3. That no one discussed Oswald's connection to Hidell before the discovery at Klein's.

I've asserted precisely the opposite.  The name "Hidell" was discussed at the Tippit crime scene, where a wallet was found bearing ID in the name Oswald and "Hidell."  I just cannot find the faintest whiff in the contemporaneous statements of the arresting officers - or anything in the media record - to demonstrate that "Hidell" had anything to do with the wallet found upon Oswald.  I've invited you to find anything that proves otherwise, but you'd prefer to issue a blanket dismissal that this was impossible.  Well....?  What have you found to rebut my contention regarding the arrest wallet?

4. That the Hidell card was added into the evidence AFTER the discovery at Klein's.

That's the unavoidable inference one must draw, given the complete paucity of evidence that anybody involved with Oswald on 11/22 knew anything about "Hidell" on that date.  [Distinct from those at the Tippit murder scene.]  Again, I've invited you to prove otherwise.  Pore over the police reports in the archives, review the media interviews given by the key players, and tell me if you can find a single mention of "Hidell" prior to the tracing of the rifle to Klein's.

5. That everyone who ever said they saw the Hidell card before the discovery at Klein's is a xxxx and/or perjurer.

Not, Pat, actually that's your contention about Barrett, the man who did provide us with reason to believe the Tippit wallet contained ID for both Oswald and "Hidell."  I would also argue that Fritz knew about the "Hidell" ID on that date.  It's just that neither he nor any of the officers involved with Oswald's arrest thought to mention that name at any time on that day, or even in their reports filed substantially after the fact.  If you would care to postulate a reason for this massive vacuum where the name "Hidell" should be, I've invited you to provide it.  Feel free.

Also, since there seems to be a problem in translating from my English to your English, let me be excruciatingly clear.  I have at no time said that DPD personnel manufactured the ID, or claimed to have seen ID that they never did see.  My contention is that they were forced to later claim that "Hidell" ID found at the Tippit murder scene was actually found upon Oswald at the time of his arrest.  Had Fritz not segregated the Tippit crime scene wallet, it might have been an entirely different story.  But he did quarantine that wallet, as FBI evidence receipts clearly show.

6. That everyone who failed to admit that a second wallet was found was a xxxx and/or perjurer.

I've never said that, and have no basis for making such an assertion.  Hence, I cannot fathom a reason why you have invented this point.  Given that only a few personnel at the Tippit crime scene knew about that wallet on 11/22, and further given that Fritz took that wallet out of the evidence pool and kept it in his desk drawer for a further five days, the number of people who knew of its existence was rather limited.  

Am I reading this correctly?  Or are you at least willing to admit that Oswald WAS Hidell?

There is no doubt that Oswald "used" the name "Hidell."  There is no conclusive evidence that he used it as an alias. 

But, since you began this post by insisting that we argue with common sense, rather than against it, let me note that it was entirely counter to common sense for Oswald to order a weapon under that name through the mails, suggesting he'd prefer no trail between himself and that weapon, and then carry self-defeatingly, obviously bogus ID in that alias on the very day that he planned to use that weapon to kill the President.  If you can think of a common sense reason for him to do so, I'd like to hear it. 

The Hidell identity goes back to New Orleans.  Hidell was stamped on the mailers Oswald was handing out.  Marina admitted she forged the Hidell name for her husband.  If you're saying that Oswald was not Hidell,, then this adds a few more  to your ever-growing colony of liars and conspirators, now doesn't it?

Well, it adds one more name, and hers belongs on any list of JFK-related liars.  This is the same woman who immediately told the media that "Lee not own a gun."  Subsequently, according to her testimony, he not only owned one, but used it against General Walker, wanted to use it against Nixon [and would have done so were it not for her locking him into the bathroom from outside???], and used it to dry-fire around their home and in parks.  While anyone with a whit of compassion might understand why she changed her tune under duress, that she did so on this and a number of other salient points doesn't exactly enhance her status as a beacon of truth.  If she is your only witness on the "Hidell" issue, I don't envy your position, or place much credence in your argument.  You are free to disagree. 

Robert Jones said he told Shanklin that Oswald was Hidell on the day of the assassination, before the rifle sales slip was ever found.

Then surely there is a Shanklin-penned memo to this effect.  Perhaps you've found it and can share it with us.  By the way, the fact that two files are cross-referenced would indicate that there's a common connection between the two, certainly.  And there should have been, since the name "Hidell" was found on Oswald's person when arrested in New Orleans [though no such bogus ID in that name was found at that time.] 

Deke Deloach says he talked to Shanklin that night, and that Shanklin told him that Oswald used the name Hidell.  If you're saying that there was no evidence linking Oswald to Hidell before the Klein's sales slip was found, then these men are all liars, too.

Not necessarily.  Recall that it was FBI agent Barrett who was present at the Tippit crime scene, and saw ID that - while patently bogus - indicated Oswald and "Hidell" were the same guy.  If Barrett advised Shanklin of this, then the FBI SAC in Dallas had very good reason to believe it to be so, and to advise his superiors of that fact.  This in no way refutes my contention, but bolsters it.

If, however, you're saying that Oswald was Hidell, and that for some reason it was considered expedient to fabricate evidence indicating as much, I must ask WHY???  If the conspirators were trying to link the rifle to Oswald, why not leave the wallet in the sniper's nest? 

Entirely unnecessary.  Leaving the rifle behind was sufficient.  It would be traced back to Klein's, and from there to Oswald's PO box [delivery receipt - missing - contrary to USPS protocols] under the name "Hidell."  In the event of Oswald's absence rather than his arrest [which is what I argue was planned], the Tippit crime scene wallet would indicate that an armed and dangerous man who worked at the TSBD and ordered the rifle that killed the President had also killed a cop in making his escape.

Elsewhere, you asked why the rounds removed from Tippit don't match the Oswald handgun.  This only became problematic with Oswald's arrest.  Had he simply disappeared, as I think was the plan, there would have been no exemplar handgun against which to test the bullets.

The only thing that might make sense is that they were afraid the DPD would find Oswald before they did, and wanted to increase the odds that the DPD killed Oswald.  So wham! kill a cop...throw down Oswald's ID. 

Still, if the IDs were planted at the Tippit scene, why did the DPD not mention thisl ...when this would have convicted Oswald immediately in the public's eye? 

As you know, Pat, I've already argued that such a wallet found at the Tippit murder scene would have made the case against Oswald a virtual slam-dunk, in his absence.  When Fritz was confronted with a suspect still bearing a wallet, however, the existence of the Tippit-scene wallet smelled less like a true artifact of that crime than it did a setup to implicate the assassin.  Certainly, Fritz seemed to have balked for some reason, because he hid that "helpful" wallet in his desk drawer for a further five days.  I've told you why I think he did so.  If you have another rationale for his behaviour, I'm all ears.

I fail to believe that the DPD's finding the Hidell ID at the Tipit site was so ewwwy scary that  Fritz would deny the existence of this wallet, switch the Hidell ID into the other wallet, and convince several officers to lie about it.  Oswald's having two wallets was not much weirder than much of the story the WC eventually settled on, e.g. Oswald smuggling a rifle into a building in a brown paper bag with sharp crease lines and no sign that a rifle was ever inside.

Yes, but now you're suggesting that Fritz would have some way of predicting what a then-non-existent WC might conjure in its findings. 

Or perhaps there was no Hidell ID at all on Friday; perhaps it was fabricated by the DPD afterwards. And then talked a whole bunch of people into lying about it.  Is that what you're saying?

Pat, you're a clever man, as the majority of your posts illustrate.  I'm having a serious problem understanding why you are labouring so hard to make this issue so much more difficult than it needs be, by inventing for me things I've never suggested.

I jjust think it makes a lot more sense that the Hidell card was found on Oswald, per Bentley, per Hill, etc..

And because I far prefer a mundane explanation over a fantastic one, I'd love to join you in that belief.  Please demonstrate that any of the arresting officers ever said, wrote or commented in any way whatsoever about "Hidell" on the day that ID was allegedly discovered upon the fleeing suspect.  If you cannot - and you clearly can't - then please formulate a common-sense rationale for this rather massive omission, when all involved found it sufficiently probative to mention the "O.H. Lee" alias used to rent his boarding house room.

In fact, I'd find it surprising if Oswald, who'd at least had a taste of the intelligence game, DIDN'T have a fake ID on him, since he was trying to flee. Or do you think he was just out for a stroll?  That he took the Hidell ID with him is to me an indication that he was unaware his rifle had been used in the killing.  In this way, to me, the Hidell ID is evidence for Oswald's innocence in the killing of Kennedy.  That the Tippit site was on a direct path to Ruby's place (and is precisely in the area a briskly-walking man would be if he left Oswald's rooming house at the time described by Mrs. Roberts) is just too much a coincidence, and is indicative that Oswald was indeed at the site, and was indeed part of a conspiracy.  (Who knows?  Maybe he realized he'd been set up and was going there to KILL Ruby!)

While admittedly I entered this debate unprepared and have argued out of my ass, not unlike Mr. Gratz at times, it is you who has based your whole theory on the statements of one or two witnesses, of questionable value, and has stacked their weak words against a mountain of evidence indicating Oswald was Hidell and the sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater, and that they discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter.  Your insistence that the early reports should have mentioned the Hidell card is just that: your insistence.  It could very well be that they were asked not to mention Hidell until the name could be thoroughly investigated; we have no way of knowing.  For you to throw out the words of all these men, and decide they are all liars, based upon the words of Barrett, as remembered by Hosty, is to me an indication of your letting your bias get in the way of your intellect.  I think you have more in common with Mr. Gratz then you would care to admit.  As we all do, at times.

You are clearly intent upon demonstrating that by ... what did you call it? ... "arguing out of your ass."  You assert that one or two witnesses are of "questionable value" and they spoke only "weak words" relative to the "mountain of evidence indicating Oswald was Hidell" and the "sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater, and that they discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter."

Perhaps instead of presuming that whatever you say, all without the slightest attempt to footnote, must be the truth and thereafter characterizing contrary evidence as you'd like it to be considered, you'd be kind enough to do the following, which I've only asked you to supply a half dozen times now:

Please itemize the "mountain of evidence that Oswald was Hidell."  Not merely that "Hidell" was a name found upon Oswald's FPCC card, or that it was a name Oswald was asked about by NO PD and FBI upon his arrest; but that Oswald was Hidell.  You take this as a given.  Show us why.

Please provide the "sworn testimony of many others indicating they did not know Oswald's name at the theater."  You assert that such testimony exists from "many others."  Please provide it, and we'll know what constitutes "many" in your definition.

Please provide your proof that the arresting officers "discovered the Hidell card shortly thereafter."  I've already itemized my reasons for questioning their testimony [what little there is], and questioned the complete absence of the name "Hidell" from the contemporaneous record.  Perhaps you'd care to explain that vacuum for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Pat Speer]

Pat, who wrote:

"That the Tippit site was on a direct path to Ruby's place (and is precisely in the area a briskly-walking man would be if he left Oswald's rooming house at the time described by Mrs. Roberts) is just too much a coincidence, and is indicative that Oswald was indeed at the site, and was indeed part of a conspiracy. "

...has evidently never been to Oak Cliff and attempted the "BRISK OSWALD WALK" uphill

from Beckley to 10th and Patton and is not familiar with its degree of difficulty.

Also, his DIRECT PATH to Ruby's place is not accurate, as can be seen by the Mapquest

route below. I believe Ruby's was on Ewing near the freeway, and there are more direct

routes available.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

[Pat Speer]

Robert, I have always enjoyed your slippery ways with an argument. Here you are pressuring me to PROVE there's evidence that the DPD found the Hidell card on Oswald, outside their word, when you know that no such proof exists. My argument, from the get-go, has been that your purported conspiracy to hide a second wallet and pretend that the Hidell ID was found in the car makes no sense. And the more you write about it, the less sense it makes. You are trying to get me to explain the lack of mention of the Hidell card in the early reports. Heck, I don't know. That's my explanation. But what I do know is that your belief that it never happened because they never mentioned it is not exactly scientific, is it? If they were gonna tell a bunch of lies and continue to lie years later, WHY OH WHY wouldn''t they have simply created some fake reports to back up their lies? Like the rest of us, you pick and choose which evidence by the DPD is fake and which is real, based upon your hunches. My hunch tells me that all the evidence and testimony is to be trusted unless one can find a compelling reason why someone would lie. To me, the cover-up of this second wallet is far from compelling. If it was used to incriminate Oswald in some way, I might feel differently. But instead, you hold that the finding of this wallet, which was incredibly damaging to Oswald, was covered up by Fritz because??? frankly, I don't understand any of your reasons. You also doubt the words of Marina and Jones and Shanklin and Deloach etc, all based on your hunch that Fritz orchestrated a cover-up for unexplainable reasons. I just don't buy it. I have read thousands and thousands of pages of reports and testimony related to the assassination, and have always given the writers and witnesses the benehit of the doubt. And guess what, it still points to a conspiracy. When you start deciding that everyone is lying about the little things, you have no foundation to understand the big things. And no ability to build an argument that will ever reach a consensus.

FWIW, Deloach wrote that he spoke to Shanklin on the night of the assassination and that Shanklin told him they'd opened up a file on Oswald on 1-12-61, as a result of a letter from the ONI office in New Orleans, and that this file now said that Oswald had "formed a chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, which listed a fictitious A.J. Hidell as its president." If this date is accurate, this makes me suspect that ONI was watching Oswald from before he even returned from Russia, and keeping the FBI informed, rather than the other way around. This supports Jones' testimony that they knew all about the Hidell identity. Pity they destroyed their files...