Oswald's Wallet

[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

<{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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Do not believe anything said by Dave Perry and Gary Mack.

2. Earline Roberts testified that LHO departed NORTHWARD from 1026

and stood at the northbound bus stop at the corner of Beckley and Zang.

Since she did not see him go south on Beckley, he therefore went NORTH.

the next street east is Crawford, so if he took Zang to Crawford, and then

turned south past the park, he could have walked uphill to Davis

and continued on Crawford to Tenth (or taken Davis to Patton).

However, Markham said he was going east on Tenth, not south on Patton.

Markham had been going south on Patton, so LHO had to be going east

on Tenth. The Crawford route is considerably longer than if he took

Beckley. I have DRIVEN this route SLOWLY (about 10mph) many times

with a car full of researchers, who timed the route DRIVING...and even in

a car, we could not match the LHO time. I do not know where you get

the EASILY DOABLE opinion. It is more than a 15 minute walk, mostly

UPHILL. I once walked DOWNHILL from Neely (cab dropoff) to 1026

Beckley, and it took about 5 minutes. Uphill would take lots longer.

In your test, did you WALK THE DISTANCE UPHILL? What times did

you use for 1026 DEPARTURE and Tenth and Patton ARRIVAL?

He left 1026 AFTER 1 pm AND STOOD AT THE BUS STOP, and arrived

at the Tippit site BEFORE 1:16. He then conversed with Tippit for some

time at the window of the car. I estimate 1:03 departure, 1:14 arrival...

about 11 minutes to reach the site. What amount of time are you

using?

EVERY RESEARCHER that I have driven over the Crawford route says

it is impossible to do in the official time.

Jack

[Mark Knight]

Pat, I couldn't help but notice...

We have WFAA-TV newsfilm of a wallet found at the site of the Tippitt killing. We have the report that Tippitt's wallet was on his person at Parkland Hospital. And we have the police officers' reports that Oswald had a wallet on his person, with ID, when apprehended at the Texas Theater.

What I couldn't help but notice was the similarity between your arguments and Groucho Marx's, in which he asks his accusers, "Who are you going to believe--me or your own two eyes?"

I don't have an explanation for Fritz's motivations. But from the evidence presented, I think it's indisputable that:

1.) Oswald had a wallet on him when arrested;

2.) There was a wallet recovered at the Tippitt murder scene, and its examination was filmed.

What was in either wallet, and at what time, is where the conflicts and the arguments begin.

Now...am I correct that we are in agreement on these two points?

I believe that Greg and Robert have the best speculative arguments as to why the second wallet may have been "dropped" at the Tippitt murder scene. I believe that, if Fritz was given the wallet from the Tippitt murder scene, complete with Oswald ID, and then discovered that Oswald had his wallet on him--complete with ID--it would raise red flags all over the place that the wallet from the Tippitt murder scene was somehow bogus...since, in the land of "innocent until proven guilty," the wallet on Oswald's person--and the ID(s) contained therein--would be considered the genuine article belonging to Oswald until or unless proven otherwise. The second wallet, then would be an unnecessary complication, in the eyes of law enforcement personnel, and would have tended to have been "swept under the rug" until or unless it produced some information of value. Not sterling police procedure, but I don't think the practice of ignoring evidence that served little purpose was uncommon in 1963...and the second wallet would serve little purpose in convicting Oswald of Tippitt's murder. As busy as the police and the press were, I actually believe that the cops who knew about the second wallet simply wished it would be forgotten, in light of the murder of the president that occurred that day...and did their best to see that it happened.

And if nobody had questioned the Warren Report, I believe it would never have been brought up again.

Edited August 5, 2005 by Mark Knight

[Pat Speer]

2. Earline Roberts testified that LHO departed NORTHWARD from 1026

and stood at the northbound bus stop at the corner of Beckley and Zang.

Since she did not see him go south on Beckley, he therefore went NORTH.

the next street east is Crawford, so if he took Zang to Crawford, and then

turned south past the park, he could have walked uphill to Davis

and continued on Crawford to Tenth (or taken Davis to Patton).

However, Markham said he was going east on Tenth, not south on Patton.

Markham had been going south on Patton, so LHO had to be going east

on Tenth. The Crawford route is considerably longer than if he took

Beckley. I have DRIVEN this route SLOWLY (about 10mph) many times

with a car full of researchers, who timed the route DRIVING...and even in

a car, we could not match the LHO time. I do not know where you get

the EASILY DOABLE opinion. It is more than a 15 minute walk, mostly

UPHILL. I once walked DOWNHILL from Neely (cab dropoff) to 1026

Beckley, and it took about 5 minutes. Uphill would take lots longer.

In your test, did you WALK THE DISTANCE UPHILL? What times did

you use for 1026 DEPARTURE and Tenth and Patton ARRIVAL?

He left 1026 AFTER 1 pm AND STOOD AT THE BUS STOP, and arrived

at the Tippit site BEFORE 1:16. He then conversed with Tippit for some

time at the window of the car. I estimate 1:03 departure, 1:14 arrival...

about 11 minutes to reach the site. What amount of time are you

using?

EVERY RESEARCHER that I have driven over  the Crawford route says

it is impossible to do in the official time.

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In an affidavitt filed with the Warren Commission, Mrs. Roberts said "Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the same side of the street as our house. I just glanced out the window that once. I don't know how long Lee Oswald stood at the curb nor did I see which direction he went when he left there..."

You are correct, however, that it was Markham who said he was heading east on 10th. The Discovery Channel simulation, by the way, timed the trek as 16:11 in order for Oswald to be heading west on 10th (thus, too long), and 11:10 for him to be heading east (just right, according to your own calculations.) My own simulation was not actually a test. A friend of mine drove the distance at around 10 miles per hour. As I recall it took less than 5 minutes. It was more to get a feel than to try and test the thing. I'm 6'4 with long legs and walk at a fairly brisk pace. It seemed to me that for someone my size and shape the walk would be easily do-able. The Discovery Channel used someone of Oswald's age and weight, and found it was just that.

[Pat Speer]

I don't have an explanation for Fritz's motivations.  But from the evidence presented, I think it's indisputable that:

1.) Oswald had a wallet on him when arrested;

2.) There was a wallet recovered at the Tippitt murder scene, and its examination was filmed.

What was in either wallet, and at what time, is where the conflicts and the arguments begin.

Now...am I correct that we are in agreement on these two points?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I believe Oswald had a wallet on him, because I believe the testimony of the officers involved.

I'm not sure if there was a wallet found at the Tippit scene. The item on the film looks like it could be a wallet. But we have no contemporaneous statements or reports indicating it was Oswald's wallet, only Hosty's second hand info years later. Correct? It could be Oswald's wallet; it could be the wallet of one of the three tramps for all we know. The possibility that it was Oswald's wallet seems to have taken seed and blossomed in the imaginations of many, to the point where they accept it as fact. This is what I'm arguing against. Not against the possibility, but against the likelihood, and that this blossoming of imagination is of a purely rational nature.

Now, to me, the likelihood of this theory gets greater as the circle of the intrigue gets smaller. If one is to assert that the rifle was bought by a Hidell, and that therefore a number of documents were faked to indicate that Oswald was Hidell, and a number of people were co-erced into lying about it and pretending they'd heard of Hidell before the assassination, I'd say one ate too many twinkies for breakfast. If one is to assert instead that Oswald was Hidell, that ONI or the CIA knew he was Hidell, that one of their operatives decided to frame Oswald for the Kennedy assassination, and that they planted the Oswald wallet to connect him to the Tippit killing, I'd say that this could be, but I don't think so, as the Tippit killing would have to be considered, literally, overkill. And totally unnecessary.

There are a number of reasons I'm reluctant to assume Oswald did not kill Tippit and that he was framed.

1. The timing and location of the killing is consistent with Oswald's actual whereabouts. If one is to assume he was framed then the fact that Oswald was not seen elsewhere at the time of the killing must just be a coincidence.

2. The killer was seen walking in the direction of the theater, where Oswald was seen moments later.

3. The killer is reported to have muttered "poor dumb cop," which I find consistent with Oswald's personality and inconsistent with that of an impersonator, who would be unlikely to talk at all, and risk demonstrating he was not Oswald.

4. When arrested Oswald behaved as though he believed the cops might kill him; while this could be true of someone who knows he's been framed as the assassin of the President, this is undoubtedly true of someone who knows he's just killed a cop.

5. When arrested Oswald actually reached for his weapon, a pistol the same caliber as the slugs removed from Tippit's body. That he tried to kill a cop when cornered in the theater is undoubtedly indiicative he might do so when cornered on the street by the unsuspecting Tippit.

6.There were a number of witnesses who IDed Oswald as the killer. Admittedly, the line-ups were less than ideal.

7. To me, the fact that Oswald had the Hidell ID on him when arrested is an indication he was unaware his rifle was used in the assassination. Oswald was not stupid. In fact he was much smarter than average. He also was not delusional. He would have to have known the rifle could be traced to Hidell. Maybe he just didn't care. It's really tough to say.

8. If Oswald was indeed heading east on 10th then he was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's place. To walk 3/4 a mile from his home and come within less that distance of Ruby's apartment seems like quite the coincidence, and yet another reason to suspect a conspiracy. If Oswald was never at the Tippit site, however, then this connection is lost.

My interest is in who killed the President. I don't believe it was Oswald. I have no problems, however, assuming Oswald killed Tippit. If I'd been framed for killing the President, and was on the run, I might have done the same.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

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. 

That should cause you far greater concern than it does me, yet you seem inexplicably sanguine about it.  If DPD had asserted that it found crime scene evidence at the TSBD, yet there was absolutely no indication of it in any of their contemporaneous memos or reports, and they testified that we'd just have to take their word for it, you'd presumably find that highly suspect. 

In this instance, it seems that because you've already decided Oswald killed Tippit, you have no interest in what was found at that crime scene, versus what was found upon his person.  Or that DPD might have elected to help themselves to some of what was found there, but simply misstate where it was found, and then deep six the container in which they found it.

You claim to represent common sense.  All I have asked you to provide is a common sense rationale for the complete absence of any mention of "Hidell" by any DPD personnel at any time prior to the rifle being traced back to that name.  I don't think that's an unusually onerous request, or "slippery," but a common sense one.

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. 

Well, Pat, for many years I didn't have an explanation either.  All one could conclude was that there was a vacuum in the statements and media comments where there should have been mentions of the "Hidell" ID.  That was most puzzling to me, since the "Hidell" ID became absolutely vital in making the case that Oswald had ordered the murder weapon.  If the discovery of that ID predated the discovery that the rifle had been ordered by someone using that name, then surely the record must reflect that in some way, right?  Yet it doesn't.  When you do conjure a common sense explanation for this, please let us know.

In the meantime, it appears as though Fritz initially put the "Hidell" ID on ice when it seemed irrelevant, but sought to insert it into the record once it was clear that the rifle had been ordered in that name.  It was a case of Fritz trying to have his cake and eat it too.  Minor sleight of hand, a three card Monte move. 

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 I am reduced to speculation, rather than science, in this matter, it is purely because the WC, when tasked to investigate these irregularities and discrepancies, failed miserably to express any interest in anything that didn't directly implicate Oswald.  You keep referring to the DPD officers' testimony as though it were monolithically uniform.  It is not.  Those purportedly involved not only contradict each other at every turn, they volunteer information - in response to questions never asked by WC counsel - that is more problematic than helpful to their own tale.  Now that we've somehow moved from common sense to science, perhaps you have a scientific reason for this. 

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? 

As you know, there was no shortage of cheap sleight of hand in the DPD paperwork.  There is a DPD memo alleging the discovery of two spent shells on the 6th floor, and another memo, identical in all respects, alleging the discovery of three spent shells.  Which is correct?  They cannot both be correct, surely.

If it took Bentley two weeks to file his report of what happened - in which report he claims to have gone directly on 11/22 to file a report that one cannot locate [???] - he/they certainly had sufficient time to work out a falsified scenario.  That Bentley's report fails to mention any ID found on Oswald in any second name should be perplexing to us both, yet you again seem inexplicably sanguine and disinterested. 

Like the rest of us, you pick and choose which evidence by the DPD is fake and which is real, based upon your hunches. 

Actually, Pat, I've spent 40 years trying to make the pieces of the puzzle fit together, and if the pieces are genuine, hunches should have nothing to do with the process.  I'd really rather not be forced to "pick and choose" what to believe, but when one is confronted with two sets of facts that directly contradict each other, what is one to do? 

It is as though one is expected to use the pieces of two different jigsaw puzzles [while being assured they're all from one jigsaw puzzle], and then is pressured to explain why one is unable to create a finished picture that is recognizable.  Surely, your animus should be directed toward those who falsified the puzzle pieces, not those who are trying to finish the puzzle.

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. 

And will remain that way, so long as you maintain that your predetermined conclusion cannot be wrong, and a complete disinterest in the way police handled the evidence upon which your conclusion is presumably based.  That's not common sense, or logic, or science.  It's a resolute gullibility that you insist others share.

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. 

It's nowhere near as difficult to comprehend as you make it seem.  In fact, the contents of the Tippit crime scene wallet - the "Hidell" ID - was used against Oswald.  Police simply chose to lie about where that ID was found.  Stating that it was found at the Tippit murder scene wasn't helpful once Oswald was found to be carrying a wallet.  On the contrary, it clearly indicated somebody had dropped it there to implicate Oswald.  Whereas they surmounted that obstacle by falsely declaring it had been found upon Oswald.  They had their cake, and they ate it too.     

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.

Again, that's an entirely inaccurate characterization of what I've said, and being a highly literate man, you know it.  While I have grave reservations about anything Marina said, because she's said too many mutually exclusive things in her testimony, I've not dismissed or disregarded or even questioned anything mentioned by Jones, Shanklin or Deloach.  That is your fallback, not mine.   

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.

Consensus?  On the one hand, you decry the "herd mentality" among assassination researchers, but on the other hand you behave like a border collie whose self-appointed role is to force the strays back into the herd.  I have never said that "everyone is lying about the little things."  That is your grossly twisted characterization, and having your propensity to do this brought to your attention time and again, one would think you might deal with what I have actually written, not what you wish I'd writtten. 

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." 

All of which is correct.  Oswald had formed such a FPCC chapter [clearly, since it had no other members], and the purported president was fictitious, since no amount of effort expended by FBI or NOPD or anyone else was likely to find a real person named "Hidell" if he didn't exist.  You'll note that nothing in that FBI report stipulates that "Hidell" was Oswald's alias.

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...

The "routine" destruction of those files was absolutely shameful, since we're hardly talking about a "routine" person.  And there is ample reason to believe that the Oswald and "Hidell" files in MI possession should have been cross-referenced since the only known source for any "Hidell" information must have come from Oswald himself.      

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I don't have an explanation for Fritz's motivations.  But from the evidence presented, I think it's indisputable that:

1.) Oswald had a wallet on him when arrested;

2.) There was a wallet recovered at the Tippitt murder scene, and its examination was filmed.

What was in either wallet, and at what time, is where the conflicts and the arguments begin.

Now...am I correct that we are in agreement on these two points?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I believe Oswald had a wallet on him, because I believe the testimony of the officers involved.

Nobody is asserting that Oswald didn't have a wallet on him when arrested. What is being debated is what ID that wallet contained. Police maintain he possessed "Hidell" ID, yet there is no mention of that fact anywhere until after the rifle was traced to him.

I'm not sure if there was a wallet found at the Tippit scene. The item on the film looks like it could be a wallet. But we have no contemporaneous statements or reports indicating it was Oswald's wallet, only Hosty's second hand info years later. Correct?

Not entirely. As Greg Parker has pointed out, Martha Moyer has interviewed another officer at the scene, Leonard Jez, and he confirmed to her that the wallet was Oswald's. Obviously, unless he made it his business to seek out this picayune detail, he wouldn't have known about what Oswald had on him when arrested, and would thus be unaware of the implied conflict of two wallets.

Moreover, Captain Fritz did supply a second "Oswald" wallet to FBI five days after Oswald's arrest. From whence did this second wallet originate if not what we know was filmed at the Tippit crime scene?

It could be Oswald's wallet; it could be the wallet of one of the three tramps for all we know. The possibility that it was Oswald's wallet seems to have taken seed and blossomed in the imaginations of many, to the point where they accept it as fact. This is what I'm arguing against. Not against the possibility, but against the likelihood, and that this blossoming of imagination is of a purely rational nature.

Now, to me, the likelihood of this theory gets greater as the circle of the intrigue gets smaller. If one is to assert that the rifle was bought by a Hidell, and that therefore a number of documents were faked to indicate that Oswald was Hidell, and a number of people were co-erced into lying about it and pretending they'd heard of Hidell before the assassination, I'd say one ate too many twinkies for breakfast.

Since none of the foregoing has been alleged here, the twinkies are irrelevant.

If one is to assert instead that Oswald was Hidell, that ONI or the CIA knew he was Hidell, that one of their operatives decided to frame Oswald for the Kennedy assassination, and that they planted the Oswald wallet to connect him to the Tippit killing, I'd say that this could be, but I don't think so, as the Tippit killing would have to be considered, literally, overkill. And totally unnecessary.

Unnecessary only in the event that Oswald actually killed Tippit, and that Oswald was to be captured, rather than vanish. How would anyone be able to tell that Oswald was Tippit's killer in the event that he wasn't arrested, Pat? Please don't make the all-too-common error of assuming that all went as planned, and then draw your conclusions accordingly. If somebody is going to the effort of implicating Oswald in a crime that he didn't commit - arguendo, for that is what the wallet suggests - they presumably didn't expect Oswald to be around, or their actions were rendundant and superfluous. That is what makes it appear to be overkill.

There are a number of reasons I'm reluctant to assume Oswald did not kill Tippit and that he was framed.

1. The timing and location of the killing is consistent with Oswald's actual whereabouts. If one is to assume he was framed then the fact that Oswald was not seen elsewhere at the time of the killing must just be a coincidence.

In order to conclude this, one must disregard the latter-day comments of Butch Burroughs, George Applin and the others in the theatre who maintain that Oswald arrived there well before Johnny Brewer called police. Much as I would prefer that their statements had been entered into the record in a timely fashion, if authorities failed to do so, the fault is not with the witnesses [whose very names DPD didn't feel the need to note] but with the police. Hence, Oswald was "seen elsewhere at the time of the killing." It's just that you've glossed over these details as though they don't exist, for reasons you've yet to explain.

Similarly, Oswald was in the vicinity of the President's murder, a crime committed with a weapon attributed to Oswald, and Oswald wasn't seen elsewhere at the time of that crime either. Yet you don't consider that sufficient reason to implicate him in that crime, Pat. Why the inconsistency in approach?

2. The killer was seen walking in the direction of the theater, where Oswald was seen moments later.

Or seen before the killing, if one credits the witnesses mentioned above.

3. The killer is reported to have muttered "poor dumb cop," which I find consistent with Oswald's personality and inconsistent with that of an impersonator, who would be unlikely to talk at all, and risk demonstrating he was not Oswald.

Again, this presumes that Oswald would be available to serve as an exemplar of his speech pattern. How would the killer have known that Oswald would be arrested 30 minutes before it happened? How and why would a killer have any such knowledge or concern?

4. When arrested Oswald behaved as though he believed the cops might kill him; while this could be true of someone who knows he's been framed as the assassin of the President, this is undoubtedly true of someone who knows he's just killed a cop.

If it's true that Oswald went to the rooming house and armed himself, but only after the assassination, he presumably feared something.

5. When arrested Oswald actually reached for his weapon, a pistol the same caliber as the slugs removed from Tippit's body.

This is true only if one disregards Gerald Hill's radio call indicating the shells were .32 automatics, not .38s. And if one sees nothing odd in the fact that Poe marked the shells at the scene, but his markings aren't on the shells in evidence.

That he tried to kill a cop when cornered in the theater is undoubtedly indiicative he might do so when cornered on the street by the unsuspecting Tippit.

6.There were a number of witnesses who IDed Oswald as the killer. Admittedly, the line-ups were less than ideal.

And there were witnesses who either failed or refused to ID Oswald as the killer, even when the lineups were so lopsidedly slanted against him. Let's not gloss over them.

7. To me, the fact that Oswald had the Hidell ID on him when arrested is an indication he was unaware his rifle was used in the assassination.

This presumes that the "Hidell" ID was found upon him. You have admitted that you cannot demonstrate this to be so, aside from the later testimony of two of the five officers purportedly involved. Their own testimony varies wildly on key facts, and the supposedly corroborative testimony of other officers who reputedly saw that ID on 11/22 back at HQ only supples more contradictions, rather than support. You've made no attempt to deal with any of those matters, one notes. You simply shrug as though it is of no import.

Oswald was not stupid. In fact he was much smarter than average. He also was not delusional. He would have to have known the rifle could be traced to Hidell. Maybe he just didn't care. It's really tough to say.

Maybe he didn't order the rifle, a possibility you seem resolutely determined not to entertain. Again, you simply accept that he did order the rifle, and insist that we should too. The assumption of too much in the absence of evidence isn't common sense, or logical, or science.

8. If Oswald was indeed heading east on 10th then he was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's place. To walk 3/4 a mile from his home and come within less that distance of Ruby's apartment seems like quite the coincidence, and yet another reason to suspect a conspiracy. If Oswald was never at the Tippit site, however, then this connection is lost.

Perhaps this is why you insist that Oswald was the one who killed Tippit, irrespective of the evidence to the contrary, to preserve the "connection" to Jack Ruby's home. Could you explain why this is of such great importance to your scenario that you will ignore the evidence Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer?

My interest is in who killed the President. I don't believe it was Oswald. I have no problems, however, assuming Oswald killed Tippit. If I'd been framed for killing the President, and was on the run, I might have done the same.

And yet only a few grafs above, you asserted that if Oswald was carrying the "Hidell" ID, and you insist he was [evidence to the contrary notwithstanding], it "is an indication he was unaware his rifle was used in the assassination." If he didn't know his rifle was used in the assassination, on what basis did he now know that he'd "been framed for killing the President?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited August 5, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Greg Parker]

I don't have an explanation for Fritz's motivations.  But from the evidence presented, I think it's indisputable that:

1.) Oswald had a wallet on him when arrested;

2.) There was a wallet recovered at the Tippitt murder scene, and its examination was filmed.

What was in either wallet, and at what time, is where the conflicts and the arguments begin.

Now...am I correct that we are in agreement on these two points?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I believe Oswald had a wallet on him, because I believe the testimony of the officers involved.

Pat, you continue to sole reliance on the testimony of Hill - who was only person who testified to Bentley discovering the dual ID.

The only official statement Bentley made on this, as far as I can determine is; On the way back to City Hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name."

I'm not sure if there was a wallet found at the Tippit scene. The item on the film looks like it could be a wallet.

As I've already told you, the cameraman (Ron Reiland) did the voice-over when the foortage was shown on WFAA. He described it as a wallet. I have confirmed this from someone who has the clip.

But we have no contemporaneous statements or reports indicating it was Oswald's wallet, only Hosty's second hand info years later. Correct?

No. Not correct. Barrett was quoted as saying in March, 1964: "Westbrook had the wallet in his hand and asked me if I knew who these people were. I don't think Westbrook would have been asking questions about something unrelated to the situation and he had the wallet with those names in it. Later, I remember seeing photographs of the contents of the wallet; in which those two names were in it."

Though not contemporaneous, Officer Jez, who was there in the thick of the action at the Tippits site, told Martha Moyer it was Oswald's wallet. Was she the first person to ever ask him about it? It seems more than possible. If true, it's hardly his fault it's late arriving evidence.

It could be Oswald's wallet; it could be the wallet of one of the three tramps for all we know. The possibility that it was Oswald's wallet seems to have taken seed and blossomed in the imaginations of many, to the point where they accept it as fact. This is what I'm arguing against. Not against the possibility, but against the likelihood, and that this blossoming of imagination is of a purely rational nature.

What "imagination" is at work here, Pat? Barrett said it was Oswald's. Jez said it was Oswald's. No-one put those words in their mouths. If Bentley's original statement is true ie that he discovered Oswald's name, you may think... okay, maybe just an oversight. But when 4 other cops also fail to mention a SECOND name, it becomes reasonable, imo, to believe that it is more UNLIKELY than it it is LIKELY that Oswald was carrying any ID except his own.

Seems to me, it takes a great deal more magination to believe that five officers had amnesia two weeks after the assassination, than it does to believe one officer perjured himself months later.

Now, to me, the likelihood of this theory gets greater as the circle of the intrigue gets smaller. If one is to assert that the rifle was bought by a Hidell, and that therefore a number of documents were faked to indicate that Oswald was Hidell, and a number of people were co-erced into lying about it and pretending they'd heard of Hidell before the assassination, I'd say one ate too many twinkies for breakfast.

If I only had a superficial knowedge of all the evidence surrounding the Hidell ID, and what little I thought I knew, was gleaned from the WCR and a book or two, I'd be saying much the same thing. That's by way of saying I understand where you're coming from.

If one is to assert instead that Oswald was Hidell, that ONI or the CIA knew he was Hidell, that one of their operatives decided to frame Oswald for the Kennedy assassination, and that they planted the Oswald wallet to connect him to the Tippit killing, I'd say that this could be, but I don't think so, as the Tippit killing would have to be considered, literally, overkill. And totally unnecessary.

I believe Tippit was expendable, and not trusted not to crack if pressured (to understand why he might crack under pressure, you really do need to check his personell file). Being able to frame Oswald for it, and leave evidence which would help link back to Castro, was a bonus. Like you, I don't think it was the DPD behind the hit. They just helped cover up some of the facts later.

There are a number of reasons I'm reluctant to assume Oswald did not kill Tippit and that he was framed.

1. The timing and location of the killing is consistent with Oswald's actual whereabouts. If one is to assume he was framed then the fact that Oswald was not seen elsewhere at the time of the killing must just be a coincidence.

Nowhere near the coincidence of five cops all suffering amnesia simultaneously. In fact, it makes sense to me that Oswald WAS in the area at the time, since I believe Tippit was searching for him, or had just abandoned the search.

2. The killer was seen walking in the direction of the theater, where Oswald was seen moments later.

Are you aware that a call went out to check out the sighting of a suspect entering the Abundant Light Temple - which was closer still to the Tippit site? The temple, which was associated with the Dallas right wing, was NOT checked. Instead, officers raced off to the false alarm at library, and/or to the TT.

3. The killer is reported to have muttered "poor dumb cop," which I find consistent with Oswald's personality

Really? That's surprises me. Seriously. I hold the exact opposite view. But as Robert has stated, there are credibility issues involving that statement. However, at the risk of raising your blood pressure again, I'll reiterate that IF those words were uttered, it may well be that it's evidence Tippit knew his killer, for the simple reason that the statement was literally true.

and inconsistent with that of an impersonator, who would be unlikely to talk at all, and risk demonstrating he was not Oswald.

Pat, when did Oswald ever use language like that? He called his bosses "sir" and "mister" (something Truly for one, wasn't used to according to his testimony), he never cussed out Bringuier, despite being shoved by him, in fact, never seemed anything but polite -- even during the few times he is said to have raised his voice in anger or frustration.

4. When arrested Oswald behaved as though he believed the cops might kill him; while this could be true of someone who knows he's been framed as the assassin of the President, this is undoubtedly true of someone who knows he's just killed a cop.

Jim Ewell, a reporter, stated that he watched the arrest from the balcony railing and saw a cop train the barrel of a shotgun down among the tangle of bodies grappling with Oswald. If Oswald hadn't started shouting that he wasn't resisting arrest... do you think he would have made it out of there alive?

5. When arrested Oswald actually reached for his weapon, a pistol the same caliber as the slugs removed from Tippit's body. That he tried to kill a cop when cornered in the theater is undoubtedly indiicative he might do so when cornered on the street by the unsuspecting Tippit.

McDonald WFAA-TV interview, Nov 23, 1963:

Q: Patrolman McDonald, in your experience with suspects and in the capture of such individuals, did you dind anything unique or strange or different about Lee Harvey Oswald?

McDonald: Well, not anything you can put your finger on, but he acted like anyone else would if they were carrying a pistol, because he reached for it immediately as soon as I grabbed a hold of him and my experience with suspects of this nature, they're all pretty calm unless they have recently or within a few minutes have committed some sort of crime. But he had time enough between the time he had in suspected [sic] of killing of JD Tippit to control his nature and was quite calm and cool.

Not quite the picture the self-annointed hero McDonald, painted for the WC, is it?

6.There were a number of witnesses who IDed Oswald as the killer. Admittedly, the line-ups were less than ideal.

IE fatally flawed.

7. To me, the fact that Oswald had the Hidell ID on him when arrested is an indication he was unaware his rifle was used in the assassination.

If it was a fact, we would have learned about it from the reports made by Barrett, Hill etc.

Oswald was not stupid. In fact he was much smarter than average. He also was not delusional. He would have to have known the rifle could be traced to Hidell. Maybe he just didn't care. It's really tough to say.

It sure is -- if you rely on the official version of events.

8. If Oswald was indeed heading east on 10th then he was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's place. To walk 3/4 a mile from his home and come within less that distance of Ruby's apartment seems like quite the coincidence, and yet another reason to suspect a conspiracy. If Oswald was never at the Tippit site, however, then this connection is lost.

That's no reason to hang on to it.

My interest is in who killed the President. I don't believe it was Oswald. I have no problems, however, assuming Oswald killed Tippit. If I'd been framed for killing the President, and was on the run, I might have done the same.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited August 5, 2005 by Greg Parker

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I don't have an explanation for Fritz's motivations.  But from the evidence presented, I think it's indisputable that:

1.) Oswald had a wallet on him when arrested;

2.) There was a wallet recovered at the Tippitt murder scene, and its examination was filmed.

What was in either wallet, and at what time, is where the conflicts and the arguments begin.

Now...am I correct that we are in agreement on these two points?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is true that the examination of a wallet was filmed at the Tippit murder scene, but we do not know that the wallet was FOUND there ie the "finding" of the wallet was not filmed.

This wallet is an active topic on the McAdams forum, where Donald Willis argues that the wallet belonged to cabdriver Scoggins. Willis believes that Scoggins had taken Tippits pistol and pursued the killer. On his return to the murder scene police questioned him and checked his ID.

I think it is highly unlikely that the wallet was "found" at the scene. How could the first witnesses - Benavides and the Davies sisters -- manage to find items as small as a revolver bullet, and not notice something as large as a wallet?

[Pat Speer]

It is true that the examination of a wallet was filmed at the Tippit murder scene, but we do not know that the wallet was FOUND there ie the "finding" of the wallet was not filmed.

This wallet is an active topic on the McAdams forum, where Donald Willis argues that the wallet belonged to cabdriver Scoggins. Willis believes that Scoggins had taken Tippits pistol and pursued the killer. On his return to the murder scene police questioned him and checked his ID.

I think it is highly unlikely that the wallet was "found" at the scene. How could the first witnesses - Benavides and the Davies sisters -- manage to find items as small as a revolver bullet, and not notice something as large as a wallet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one who wouldn't swallow this theory.

I'd also like to note a few inconsistencies in the reasoning of others on this thread. God knows they've been pointing out my inconsistencies.

According to Robert and Greg, we are to believe that because none of the officers mentioned the Hidell ID in their original reports we should believe that they never saw the ID in Oswald's wallet, no matter what they testified to later, or told Larry Sneed.

And YET, Robert Barrett never mentioned the discovery of Oswald's wallet in any of his reports either, and we are supposed to believe that he did indeed see Oswald's wallet. Why is it that when one group of men exclude something from their report, it's proof something did not happen, but when someone else excludes it from his report, well, never mind????? That Barrett may have said something about it later has no bearing on this. After all, when the DPD officers said something about it later, Robert and Greg chose to disbelieve THEM. If their words have no credibility even 30 years later, then neither do Barrett's.

Similarly, a number of witnesses to emerge much much later without any yardstick to measure their credibility have been given instant credibility, but a number of men like Westbrook and Bentley, who have been fairly consistent from day one, are to be automatically doubted. Simply because their initial reports did not say what Robert thought they should say. This reflects his bias. IMO

[Jack White]

Apparently nobody has read Armstrong's account of the ordering of the rifle.

Jack

[David G. Healy]

J. Raymond Carroll wrote:

[...]

This wallet is an active topic on the McAdams forum, where Donald Willis argues that the wallet belonged to cabdriver Scoggins.

'McAdams' forum? How convenient that is -- lmao! This thread is heading downhill, quickly!

IMO

[...]

Edited August 5, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Mark Knight]

It is true that the examination of a wallet was filmed at the Tippit murder scene, but we do not know that the wallet was FOUND there ie the "finding" of the wallet was not filmed.

So you contend that the wallet may have been found elsewhere, and then brought back to the Tippitt murder scene to be examined [and filmed]?

There is no logical reason that would explain the bringing of evidence to a murder scene. One might take evidence from a murder scene to examine it, at a police station or a crime lab, but evidence, under normal circumstances, is not brought to a murder scene...unless it was found in the immediate vicinity...which would tend to support my original statement.

So...we still have a wallet found at or near the Tippitt murder scene, and one found on Oswald's person. Can we at least agree on that? I'm not arguing that the wallet being examined at 10th and Patton wasn't from a cabdriver, a wino, or a street preacher; I'm just saying that the evidence shows that one was found and examined at the Tippitt murder scene.

Can I get Pat to at least concede that this statement conforms with the photographic record?

[Christopher T. George]

Hi all

Just a thought. Is it possible that Oswald had more than one wallet? That he dropped one at the Tippett murder scene and had the other one on him at the movie theatre? Is it not credible for a man who goes by an alias or aliases to carry more than one wallet, and to produce that wallet that would contain the identification he wants seen at the moment he is stopped?

Chris

[Mark Knight]

The flaw in that theory is that, if one is stopped by police and subsequently searched, the presence of more than one wallet would then become evidence that the person is not who they claim to be, or that they are not as innocent as they might claim to be...

In other words, when Oswald stopped at his rooming house, if he had some inkling that the police would be looking for him--which he apparently did--the most prudent course of action would be to only carry one wallet, in order to NOT appear any more suspicious than he already was.

But the allegation is that the wallet Oswald carried had BOTH the Hidell and the Oswald ID's. If one was attempting to establish EITHER one identity or the other, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that the Oswald and the Hidell ID's would be segregated in separate wallets? In fact, I would contend that unless Oswald wanted to confirm to police that he and Hidell were one and the same person, one simply would not, under any circumstances, carry both ID's at the same time. And carrying both in the same wallet smells of either stupidity--and Ozzie wasn't stupid--or intent. It's just hard to establish what his intent may have been, using logic as a basis.

[Guest John Gillespie]

"I think it is highly unlikely that the wallet was "found" at the scene. How could the first witnesses - Benavides and the Davies sisters -- manage to find items as small as a revolver bullet, and not notice something as large as a wallet?"

Jack and Ray,

Yes indeed, Jack, how interesting that certain 'value' is placed on testimony, physical evidence, etc. and none on others. We're always better off trying to keep a "Welcome" sign over our collective craniums and stick to what is known.

We do know that Hosty, according to his own book, says that Barrett told him about the wallet found at 10th and Patton.

Wallet #2 purportedly was taken from LHO in the Police car. However, check out the narrative/summary/paperback Warren Commission report on this:

"Later that evening (NOTE: refers to 11/21/63), when Mrs. Paine had finished cleaning the kitchen, she went into the garage and noticed that the light was burning. She was certain that she had not left it on, although the incident appeared unimportant at the time. In the garage were most of the Oswalds' personal possessions.

The following morning (NOTE: refers to 11/22/63) Oswald left while his wife was still in bed feeding the baby. She did not see him leave the house, nor did Ruth Paine. On the dresser in their room he left his wedding ring which he had never done before. His wallet containing $170 was left intact in a dresser-drawer." Allright!! Wallet #3 !

This reminds me of the hilarious Saturday Night live skit many years ago (apologies to my international brethren who wouldn't know) wherein Chevy Chase and Jane Curtin showed highlights of a supposed skiing tournament (in the aftermath of the Claudine Longet 'accidental' shooting of skier/lover Spider Sabach). One by one, skiers would be shown soaring and then quickly losing thier balance in midair while Chase and Curtin rapidly announced "...and, oh, HE's been accidentally shot by Claudine Longet."

Similarly, I went to check my mail last night and, yes, there was Oswald's wallet, somehow slipped through the slot near my flat. This morning I arrived at my place of employment and began going through the mundane routines one normally does at the outset of the work day and, my God, there in my bin was a wallet...

Have a nice weekend everyone, JAG

Edited August 5, 2005 by John Gillespie