Oswald's Wallet

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Dale Myers devotes 18 pages to the Barret wallet story (With Malice p287 - 304). Myers is attracted to the story because it seems to clinch the case against Lee Oswald for the Tippit murder. Even Myers is uneasy about the story and gives it only a half-hearted endorsement. But a critical look at the evidence cited in Myers' book will show, I submit, that Barret's story about an Oswald wallet found at Tenth & Patton is not only false; it is completely ridiculous.

I believe we can say with confidence that, at about 1.46 p.m, at least a half hour after the Tippit murder, police did examine a wallet at the murder scene AND that NONE of the police involved concluded that the wallet constituted evidence in the case.

As Myers describes the WFAA film (WM p.292) the wallet first appears on film in the hands of Sergeant Owens. When the film was broadcast that afternoon the narrator/cameraman announced that "[t]his is the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of his car." (WM p. 298. Myers rightly points out that both the name of the owner and the location of "finding" remain unconfirmed. Greg Parker asks " why wasn't it found by any of the witnesses... perhaps it was under Tippit's body? Myers notes that no wallet was noticed by the two ambulancemen who removed Tippit's body).

In the film Owens shows the wallet to Captain Doughty. "As Owens holds the wallet open, Doughty runs his finger along one of the celluloid photo slips which usually hold photographs or ID cards." Then a third person approaches as the film ends. Myers theorizes that the third person must be Westbrook, thereby lending some support to Barret's claims. Among the other officers in close proximity were Poe, Jez, Croy, Barnes from the Crime Scene squad and Detective Paul Bentley.

As C.S. Peirce often pointed out, a good way to figure out what someone believes is to observe what he does and, equally importantly, what he does not do.

I submit that If Owens or Doughty or Westbrook or any other officer at the scene actually believed that this wallet contained the name of Tippit's killer, surely the first thing they would have done is radio this information to the dispatcher. Swift action in such a high-profile case might be expected to lead to a commendation, a medal, or even a promotion. These officers should have been crawling all over each other to be the first to radio in the news, yet here supposedly they have the most explosive evidence in their hands and they're all struck dumb. And apparently they all remain dumb for the next few decades until the publication of Hosty's book.

Perhaps it could be argued that they did not call the dispatcher because they had decided to cover up the existence of this wallet, but theories of a coverrup triggered by the subsequent finding of a wallet on Lee Oswald's person must explain this fact: How could Westbrook and the other officers know to coverrup the existence the Tenth Street wallet when Owens and Doughty were filmed holding the wallet at 1.42 pm, about 8 minutes before Lee Oswald's arrest and even longer before his wallet was discovered?

Greg Parker wrote:

"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."

I say that Society should not (and does not) accept that a police officer reporting on a crime is obliged to report only those facts he is asked about. We expect a responsible officer to report any material fact that comes to his attention. I believe officer Jez filed a report on the Tippit murder that said nothing about a wallet being found. He also told Dale Myers (February 1996) that to his knowledge no wallet was found at the scene. (WM P. 300) though (since then?) he said the opposite to Martha Moyer. Surely his words and actions/inactions at the time speak much louder than anything he says today?

Barret's story did not become public until 1996, and there is nothing in his official reports from 1963-4 which corroborate the wallet story. How reliable is Barret's memory? Consider this little gem which Myers mentions in the endnotes on p. 626: On November 22, 1963, Barret's written report says that "one of the officers took a ...revolver out of Oswald's right hand and handed it to detective Carroll." By 1996 Barret was telling Myers that it was he (Barret himself) who grabbed the revolver and handed it to Carroll.

[Jack White]

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

<{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..."

TO THE RIGHT OF 1026 BECKLEY IS NORTH, AS I HAVE SAID. IN ADDITION,

THE BUS STOP IS AT LEAST 100 FEET NORTH, AT ZANG. IF HE DID NOT GO

SOUTH ON BECKLEY OR CROSS THE STREET TO ZANG, HE HAD TO CIRCLE THE

BLOCK TO CRAWFORD...ADDING TO THE DISTANCE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jack, you'veadded the "if he did not go south on Beckley" into your statements. Earlier you insisted he must have went North. The route tested was of Oswald heading south. You are almost certainly correct in your assertion that if Oswald went around the long block to the North he couldn't have arrived at the Tippit site in time. But we have no reason to believe he did that. Roberts said she just saw him the one time. There is no reason to doubt he went south.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong. It was Earline Roberts who said he went north. I am only repeating what

the witness said. She did NOT see him go south. If he went south, he would have had to

retrace his steps and GO BACK PAST THE ROOMING HOUSE, which she might have

noticed. The only witness who saw him leave 1026 Beckley said he WENT NORTH. It

is not me insisting he went north, it was Mrs. Roberts. Please do not twist what I said.

What I said was IF HE DID NOT GO SOUTH (no witness), the alternatives are to cross

the street to Zang, or to follow Zang to Crawford. To say he went south when the

ONLY witness said he was going NORTH WHEN LAST SEEN is being very selective.

When she last saw him, HE WAS STANDING BY THE NORTHBOUND BUS STOP.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

Dale Myers devotes 18 pages to the Barret wallet story (With Malice p287 - 304). Myers is attracted to the story because it seems to clinch the case against Lee Oswald for the Tippit murder. Even Myers is uneasy about the story and gives it only a half-hearted endorsement.

J, 18 pages is a lot to devote to a "half-hearted endorsement."

But a critical look at the evidence cited in Myers' book will show, I submit, that Barret's story about an Oswald wallet found at Tenth & Patton is not only false; it is completely ridiculous.

So submitted.

I believe we can say with confidence that, at about 1.46 p.m, at least a half hour after the Tippit murder, police did examine a wallet at the murder scene AND that NONE of the police involved concluded that the wallet constituted evidence in the case.

As Myers describes the WFAA film (WM p.292) the wallet first appears on film in the hands of Sergeant Owens. When the film was broadcast that afternoon the narrator/cameraman announced that "[t]his is the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of his car." (WM p. 298. Myers rightly points out that both the name of the owner and the location of "finding" remain unconfirmed.

It seems someone must have told Reiland is was Tippit's wallet and where it was found.  That someone surely was a cop. But how likely is it to have been Tippit's?

Are you aware that Reiland also described the pistol as belonging to the suspect? Isn't it possible -- likely even, that Reiland confused what belong to whom, and that he was actually told that the wallet belonged to the suspect, and the pistol was the victim's?

Greg Parker asks " why wasn't it found by any of the witnesses... perhaps it was under Tippit's body? Myers notes that no wallet was noticed by the two ambulancemen  who removed Tippit's body).

Well, actually the first part of your quote above was your question, which I responded to by asking isn't it possible it was found under Tippit.

In the film Owens shows the wallet to Captain Doughty. "As Owens holds the wallet open, Doughty runs his finger along one of the celluloid photo slips which usually hold photographs or ID cards."  Then a third person approaches as the film ends. Myers theorizes that the third person must be Westbrook, thereby lending some support to Barret's claims.

In a 1996 interview, Hosty claimed that man was Barrett:  "Yes, you know that they have found newsreels, tv shots taken that day, at the Tippit scene, showing the police looking at a wallet and showing Barrett in the background."

Among the other officers in close proximity were Poe, Jez, Croy, Barnes from the Crime Scene squad and Detective Paul Bentley. 

As C.S. Peirce often pointed out, a good way to figure out what someone believes is to observe what he does and, equally importantly, what he does not do.

I submit that If Owens or Doughty or Westbrook or any other officer at the scene actually believed that this wallet contained the name of Tippit's killer, surely the first thing they would have done is radio this information to the dispatcher.

Westbrook was one who raced to the false alarm at the library. He then returned to the Tippit scene, spoke with Barrett and a female witness -- then got called to the TT. In short, he little time for calling in evidence.

Can you demonstrate that every piece of evidence found, was called in by someone... anyone?

  Swift action in such a high-profile case might be expected to lead to a commendation, a medal, or even a promotion.

Yep. That's why they were making haste to each new sighting.

These officers should have been  crawling all over each other to be  the first to radio in the news, yet here supposedly they have the most explosive evidence in their hands and they're all struck dumb.

It was only going to be explosive AFTER Oswald's capture... till then, they had two names as leads which may or may not pan out. Better to high-tail it to help round up suspects at the library... then the TT. If the wallet belonged to one of them - a slam dunk.  Again, I would invite you to demonstrate that phoning in possible evidence was of a higher priority than nabbing a suspect. You can do this by showing that all other evidence was phoned through.

And apparently they all remain dumb for the next few decades until the publication of Hosty's book.

Nope. I've already quoted what Barrett said in 1964.

Perhaps it could be argued that they did not call the dispatcher because they had decided to cover up the existence of this wallet, but theories of a coverrup triggered by the subsequent finding of a wallet on Lee Oswald's person must explain this fact: How could Westbrook and the other officers know to coverrup the existence the Tenth Street wallet when Owens and Doughty were filmed holding the wallet at 1.42 pm, about 8 minutes before Lee Oswald's arrest and even longer before his wallet was discovered? 

That they knew to cover up it's existence immediately is your suggestion. I have not made it, nor has anyone else, as far as I'm aware. I've explained above why I believe it wasn't phoned through.

Greg Parker wrote:

"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."

I say that Society should not (and does not) accept that a police officer reporting on a crime is obliged to report only those facts he is asked about. We expect a responsible officer to report any material fact that comes to his attention.

Name one member of the DPD who lived up to those expectations in their reports!

I believe officer Jez filed a report on the Tippit murder that said nothing about a wallet being found.

Do you know where that report is? I couldn't find it among the DPD folders online. The only report by Jez it contains is in regard to his assignment of 11/24.

He also told Dale Myers (February 1996) that to his knowledge no wallet was found at the scene. (WM P. 300)  though (since then?) he said the opposite to Martha Moyer. Surely his words and actions/inactions at the time speak much louder than anything he says today?

On the contrary, he appears to have been pretty busy.

But I don't have Myers' book. Can you quote the relevant passage for me. I'll get in touch with Martha Moyer and ask her for the quote she obtained. Let's examine both and see if it helps.

Barret's story did not become public until 1996, and there is nothing in his official reports from 1963-4 which corroborate the wallet story. How reliable is Barret's memory?  Consider this little gem which Myers mentions in the endnotes on p. 626: On November 22, 1963, Barret's written report says that "one of the officers took a ...revolver out of Oswald's right hand and handed it to detective Carroll." By 1996 Barret was telling Myers that it was he (Barret himself) who grabbed the revolver and handed it to Carroll.

Even in the immediate aftermath, there are several accounts of who took the pistol off Oswald, and who it was given to. A subject that deserves it own thread (for that very reason), but which brings nothing to this thread.

As for Scoggins - whosever wallet it was - it could not have been his if you rely upon the accuracy of his testimony:

Mr. SCOGGINS. No. We drove around and asked several people, but we did not see anybody that looked like him.

    Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?             

    Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, by that time there was more policemen there than you can shake a stick at. They were all over that place, and we stopped the cab.

    Mr. BELIN. At about what time, do you know offhand?

    Mr. SCOGGINS. About 1:30, I guess, approximately 1:30; between 1:30 and 1:35, I would say. We cruised around several blocks looking for him, and we--one of these police cars came by and this fellow who was with me stopped it, and we got back in the car and went back up to the scene, and he give them the pistol, and that time is when I found out he wasn't an officer.

    Mr. BELIN. Then what happened, or what did you do?

    Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, they was questioning a lot of people and questioning everybody, and they was talking, and so I went back and got on my radio and contacted my supervisor, and they wanted me to come into the office and make a statement, and so I did, the cab company. One of the supervisors got a statement of it, and he asked me did the police, did I give them a statement, and I told him no because, and he said, "Well, why didn't you?"I said, "They didn't ask me. They talked with everybody else."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Dawn Meredith]

Other than the pictures on the first page of this topic of two officers holding a wallet at the Tippit scene?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who are those officers? Has anyone talked to them? How do we know it's not Tippit's wallet?

Excuse me if I sound ignorant, but I'm 95% convinced Oswald DID kill Tippi

________________________________

Pat: My good friend J Harrison always believed this too. He and Tippit were good friends. J. may have had his bias re Dallas police officers, but when ever I would ask him about one I thought was dirty he'd often confirm by saying "he was the finest officer money could rent", so I never got into it with him re my view on Tippit. But I always personally believed that Tippit was sent there to kill LHO and when he did not succeed in this he was killed. The witness testimony is all over the map, the physical evidence the same. Little (credible) research has been done on the shooting of Tippit that I am aware of (tho I could be terrible wrong here).

Dawn

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Dale Myers devotes 18 pages to the Barret wallet story (With Malice p287 - 304). Myers is attracted to the story because it seems to clinch the case against Lee Oswald for the Tippit murder. Even Myers is uneasy about the story and gives it only a half-hearted endorsement. But a critical look at the evidence cited in Myers' book will show, I submit, that Barret's story about an Oswald wallet found at Tenth & Patton is not only false; it is completely ridiculous.

I believe we can say with confidence that, at about 1.46 p.m, at least a half hour after the Tippit murder, police did examine a wallet at the murder scene AND that NONE of the police involved concluded that the wallet constituted evidence in the case.

We could certainly assume with confidence that "none of the police involved concluded that the wallet constituted evidence in the case" only if any of them actually said that, or rendered a statement in writing to that effect.  You are concluding a fact not in evidence, unless you can provide a police report written by any of those present stipulating that the wallet was irrelevant.

For example, had police checked the wallet and ascertained it belonged to Scoggins or Markham or anyone else not suspected of the crime, I would imagine that one of the police involved in finding the wallet and locating its owner might have mentioned that fact.  Or, if it belonged to Scoggins, arguendo, that he might have mentioned this in his testimony.  I've located nothing of the sort, but perhaps you have, or can.

Consequently, the first half of your above assertion about what we can "say with confidence" is correct: police found a wallet and examined it.  The second portion of your assertion is merely your supposition and not something we can "say with confidence."

As Myers describes the WFAA film (WM p.292) the wallet first appears on film in the hands of Sergeant Owens. When the film was broadcast that afternoon the narrator/cameraman announced that "[t]his is the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of his car." (WM p. 298. Myers rightly points out that both the name of the owner and the location of "finding" remain unconfirmed. Greg Parker asks " why wasn't it found by any of the witnesses... perhaps it was under Tippit's body? Myers notes that no wallet was noticed by the two ambulancemen  who removed Tippit's body).

Nor would it have been material to either ambulance man in any event.  Their sole concern is to retrieve the body and rush it to the nearest hospital ASAP.  No doubt they had been instructed not to alter crime scenes.  Had they found or seen a wallet at the crime scene, they presumably would have left it there anyway, rather than take it with them.  In this instance, oddly, it seems that the ambulance responded and had already left with Tippit's body prior to the arrival on the scene of the first DPD officer.    

In the film Owens shows the wallet to Captain Doughty. "As Owens holds the wallet open, Doughty runs his finger along one of the celluloid photo slips which usually hold photographs or ID cards."  Then a third person approaches as the film ends. Myers theorizes that the third person must be Westbrook, thereby lending some support to Barret's claims. Among the other officers in close proximity were Poe, Jez, Croy, Barnes from the Crime Scene squad and Detective Paul Bentley. 

As C.S. Peirce often pointed out, a good way to figure out what someone believes is to observe what he does and, equally importantly, what he does not do.

I submit that If Owens or Doughty or Westbrook or any other officer at the scene actually believed that this wallet contained the name of Tippit's killer, surely the first thing they would have done is radio this information to the dispatcher.  Swift action in such a high-profile case might be expected to lead to a commendation, a medal, or even a promotion. These officers should have been  crawling all over each other to be  the first to radio in the news, yet here supposedly they have the most explosive evidence in their hands and they're all struck dumb. And apparently they all remain dumb for the next few decades until the publication of Hosty's book.

The lack of action by police regarding the wallet issue is as anomalous as you state, but it troubles you more than it does me, based on other events that day.  For example, per your observation, I would also expect that when Roy Truly advised Capt. Fritz that a single TSBD employee - named Oswald - was missing from the TSBD, and when the rifle was found on the 6th floor at nearly the precise same time - that Fritz would radio these highly pertinent facts into HQ.  "The suspect we are looking for might be named Oswald.  Here's a description from the man who hired him....."  I have been unable to locate any indication that this happened.  Instead, Fritz seems to have strolled over to Sheriff Decker's office, on his way back to HQ.

If police that day failed to carry out certain fundamental procedures that we might rightly have expected them to do, I will grant them a certain degree of latitude... chaos, heat of the moment, rapidly unfolding events, difficultly getting through on the radio, etc.  To do otherwise places too great a burden on the man in the field, from armchair critics [like me] who were not there.

However, that forgiveness expressed, what I find wholly inexplicable is the complete absence of these details from their subsequent written reports.  Those weren't written amid chaos, or in the heat of the moment and did not require a functional radio.  Surely one of those officers should have had the presence of mind, after the fact, to mention this little detail in a written report, even if only to note: "We found a wallet that we initially thought might belong to the Tippit murder suspect.  Upon examination, we found that it belonged to a nearby cab driver named Scoggins."  In the absence of such a report, we might have expected it to subsequently be contained in the testimony given the WC.  Another blank.

Of course, all of the foregoing assumes that the Dallas police tape transcripts accurately reflect what happened that day.  While I do not suggest that such a radio call from the Tippit crime scene was made and thereafter removed from the audio or transcript record, there are a sufficient number of anomalies regarding that day's radio calls that others have asserted tampering with the tapes, and hence also with the transcript record.  DPD did itself no favours, regarding the bona fides of that tape/transcript record, by submitting more than one version for the WC's consumption.  This may not be a conclusive factor one way or the other, but is something that we must bear in mind.         

Perhaps it could be argued that they did not call the dispatcher because they had decided to cover up the existence of this wallet, but theories of a coverrup triggered by the subsequent finding of a wallet on Lee Oswald's person must explain this fact: How could Westbrook and the other officers know to coverrup the existence the Tenth Street wallet when Owens and Doughty were filmed holding the wallet at 1.42 pm, about 8 minutes before Lee Oswald's arrest and even longer before his wallet was discovered? 

I've not seen anyone post that police at the scene decided to cover up anything, in part for the very reason you cite.  However, I think you've provided a partial answer for why police failed to radio in about the wallet.  If we grant that you are correct about police examining a wallet at 1:42 pm, and we know that according to the DPD tape transcript the dispatcher alerts the officers that a suspect has been reported in the Texas Theatre two minutes later, surely racing to the Texas Theatre and surrounding that suspect would have taken precendence over continued examination of the wallet, or radioing in a report about its contents.

Hence, I would suggest that events overtook the Tippit scene officers, and Westbrook - or whomever - pocketed the wallet and took it with him to his next destination, the anticipated capture of the murderer.  By your own timeline, they had only two minutes to make that radio call before far more pressing matters forced their hand.

Greg Parker wrote:

"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."

I say that Society should not (and does not) accept that a police officer reporting on a crime is obliged to report only those facts he is asked about. We expect a responsible officer to report any material fact that comes to his attention.

That very expectation is a large part of this thread, as you'll no doubt recall.  That is precisely why one might expect the five officers involved in transporting Oswald downtown to have mentioned somewhere in their respective reports having found "Hidell" ID upon his person when they arrested him.  Yet Bentley's report, coming even two weeks later, omits this rather key detail, even after the importance of the "Hidell" ID in tying Oswald to the assassination rifle was well known. 

While I may understand and forgive police failure to radio into HQ about the Tippit crime scene wallet [based on the above possible rationale], your observation is also exactly why I would expect to read about this wallet in the subsequent report of at least one of the officers involved. 

I believe officer Jez filed a report on the Tippit murder that said nothing about a wallet being found.

To date, the only "Jez" report I've found re: Tippit was actually authored by Poe and co-signed by Jez.  The report mentions nothing about the wallet, but if so, the omission seems to have been Poe's and not Jez's.

He also told Dale Myers (February 1996) that to his knowledge no wallet was found at the scene. (WM P. 300)  though (since then?) he said the opposite to Martha Moyer. Surely his words and actions/inactions at the time speak much louder than anything he says today?

That is clearly something we'll have to resolve, to determine if the error was Jez's, Myers' or Martha's.

Barret's story did not become public until 1996, and there is nothing in his official reports from 1963-4 which corroborate the wallet story. How reliable is Barret's memory?  Consider this little gem which Myers mentions in the endnotes on p. 626: On November 22, 1963, Barret's written report says that "one of the officers took a ...revolver out of Oswald's right hand and handed it to detective Carroll." By 1996 Barret was telling Myers that it was he (Barret himself) who grabbed the revolver and handed it to Carroll.

Since Barrett originally told this to Hosty soon after it happened, the issue of Barrett's memory 30-plus years later is an irrelevant canard.  One can understand Myers' determination to impeach the credibility of his own witness, since his entire Tippit scenario must rely upon Barrett being wrong.  Hence, I fully understand what motivates Myers to include this unflattering assertion about Barrett; less so your repetition of it as though it were in any way germane.

At this juncture, the issue should be whether Hosty's memory is credible 30-plus years later.  If you have a reason to impugn him, presumably you'll provide it, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Charles Black]

As I remember, there was only one witness to the actual shooting who ID'ed Oswald, and she wasn't very reliable.  There were, however, a number of witnesses to Oswald's flight, including Johnny Brewer, who followed Oswald to the theater.  If Oswald wasn't involved in the killing, why did he hide in the theater?  Why did he fight the cops?  Were the conspirators so reckless that they dragged a bunch of ordinary Dallas citizens into their GRAND conspiracy, to frame po' lil' Oswald, whom they already had an open and shut case against? I will admit the possibility that Oswald was with someone else, who did the actual shooting, and that Oswald ran away.  But that he wasn't even there makes NO sense.

P.S. When I say they had an open and shut case against Oswald, I don't mean to say that Oswald might not have successfully been released on appeal.  But to think that a 1963 or 1964 jury would release him for lack of evidence is to live in a pipedream.  I mean, he wasn't an ex-football player or anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So if you're walking quickly, you shot a cop? Well, I must have killed a cop yesterday, because I was attempting to get from one end of a store to the other before the payment department closed. Maybe he had to meet someone ( since he reportedly did sit next to several people in the theater ) and was running late. Maybe he saw the killing, and knew who did it.

Maybe Oswald chickened out. Maybe he talked about the CIA, the government, blah blah blah - but when it came down to actually doing anything, he turned into a complete wimp. It's a possibility. Maybe he fought the cops because he wasn't supposed to have an unlicensed, concealed weapon.

Strange behavior does not a killer make.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nic:

Get serious! Do you really believe that a man whose only crime was carrying a concealed weapon would be foolish enough to draw his old damaged revolver and have a shootout with a multitude of armed police officers who encircled him in a movie theatre?

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

So if you're walking quickly, you shot a cop? Well, I must have killed a cop yesterday, because I was attempting to get from one end of a store to the other before the payment department closed. Maybe he had to meet someone ( since he reportedly did sit next to several people in the theater ) and was running late. Maybe he saw the killing, and knew who did it.

Maybe Oswald chickened out. Maybe he talked about the CIA, the government, blah blah blah - but when it came down to actually doing anything, he turned into a complete wimp. It's a possibility. Maybe he fought the cops because he wasn't supposed to have an unlicensed, concealed weapon.

Strange behavior does not a killer make.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're absolutely correct that in a rush to judgment, the DPD could have framed the mysterious commie-loving Oswald for the Tippit killing. Stranger things have happened. But, that's not the contention of this thread, as I understand it. It seems to me that this thread is exploring the possibility or probability that Tippit was killed specifically to frame Oswald, by having Oswald's wallet dropped at the scene of the crime. I don't buy it.

It makes no sense to me that the DPD would refuse to investigate the murder of one of their own, simply to frame a commie who was already going down. It also makes no sense to me that a DPD officer would just so happen to be killed a few blocks away from the movie theater where Oswald was hanging out, and that the men seeking to frame Oswald just happened to be in the neighborhood. So that leads us back to the possibility that someone outside the DPD killed Tippit and framed Oswald, knowing Oswald was nearby. But then we run into the wall that, if there really were two wallets, someone in the DPD knew about it. Read Larry Sneed's interviews with the DPD in No More Silence. These men barely cared about Kennedy compared to how much they wanted to catch Tippit's killer. I just don't believe that anyone in the DPD would deliberately look the other way and let Tippit's real killer escape.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This brings us back to why would it have been Tippit's wallet in the photographs? By your admission, they cared about Tippit's murder, and one of their own - so they'd have known he was a cop, why the need for a check of his wallet? If you're going to suggest they were investigating the idea of robbery as a motive, I don't know of any criminal stupid enough to attempt to rob a uniformed cop in a marked police car in the middle of broad daylight. Even if we took that giant leap, why would he continue shooting him several times AFTER he was already dead? If you'd just robbed a cop, and shot him - you would be running for the hills because killing a cop is really frowned upon, and you'd want to get out of there.

Actually, I agree that it's best to entertain the idea that Oswald killed Tippit, however, I like to have my questions answered before I make statements like they're fact - and I like to question other people's ideas and their statements, I think you learn more that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"This brings us back to why it would have been Tippits wallet in the photographs"

Why not? There is nothing to suggest otherwise in the photographs. I know that on several occasions that my wallet has become dilodged in my hip pocket and has come out both on the seat and on the ground when I exited the car. It is very possible.

My personal opinion has been that it is probable that LHO did in fact shoot Tippit when he realized that he had been "patsied". He was very alone, very confused and very afraid for his life.

Charlie Black

[Charles Black]

For what it is worth!

I have been confused by this issue for a very very long time and on, several occasions, nearly driven myself mad with all of the inconsistencies and changed or changing testimonies. I don't believe that there can be definitive proof gained by looking further into the conflicting testimonies and grainy pictures unless something new and definitive is in the future uncovered.

I personally have satisfied myself, to an extent, that the following most likely occurred.

1) LHO did in fact shoot Tippit!

2) He shot him while in a panic from realizing that the govt. conspiracy in which he thought that he was involved, had turned into the murder of the most powerful man in the world and that he had been framed as "The Shooter".

3) He was alone, confused, and in his mind, already convicted by the powerful forces which he knew were involved.

4) He went to the window of the police car while fingering his weapon. He strongly suspected that this individual who was supposed to whisk him away might really intend to kill him.

5) Tippit exited the police car and reached for his weapon. Oswald realized the extent of his betrayal and in a frightened rage shot his betrayer repeatedly. As Tippit fell, his wallet that had become dislodged while he was driving, slipped out of his pocket.

6) In a complete panic, Oz made his way to an area near the theatre and with sirens blaring up and down the street, he sensibly ducked into the darkened theatre.Could there have been anywhere better for a man in his state of confusion?

7) The police entered the theatre and were all around him. He was afraid and trapped. No possible way out of this predicament. Regardless of whatever he might have been innocent of; he knew that he was guilty of killing a policeman!

8) Feeling that there was nothing more to lose, he drew his pistol.

Why not?

9) Later, finding himself still alive and in police custody, he settled down and withdrew into the mode of behavior in which he had been schooled. He possibly thought, or at least hoped, that there could be a way out. He may have even been slipped the word that things might still work out.

10) Two days later he was killed by an assassin who himself had been convinced that he would escape conviction.

Charlie Black

Edited August 7, 2005 by Charles Black

[Guest John Gillespie]

Wallet(s) Redux:

I had a computer-free weekend, so I want to reiterate something from Friday, 8/5/05, with an additional comment or two.

There are several things apparently on the agenda here, perhaps more (again, I apologize for being in absentia for at least a couple of days): the Tippit murder, whether the wallet found at the scene was a separate item from a wallet purportedly taken from Oswald at the time of his arrest and whether the IDs

of the Tippit scene were constructed for the scenario.

I do believe, as Charles Black does, that Oswald shot Tippit. Clearly, with his actions just prior to the confrontation at tenth and Patton and his state of incommunicado, Tippit had a rendezvous, regardless of LHO's level of awareness.

I do NOT believe the Tippit murder will ever be solved, but as to the multiple wallets, allow me once again to quote from the WC summary:

"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."

Note the use of the word 'intact.' We can presume it is meant that the wallet was in a condition in which a wallet normally is observed on or in a dresser, i.e., items such as IDs, money and other contents; put another way, utilitarian, and without any of the usual contents removed. BUT DID THE WC ASK anyone TO DESCRIBE IT AND THE CONTENTS? Again presumably, someone must have counted the money (why?), therefore handled this wallet and therefore in an excellent position to observe its appearance and contents, including IDs. Finally, what happened to THIS wallet?

The WC summary section quoted above does not attribute its statements to Ruth Paine or anyone. It just says Paine didn't see LHO leave the house. Does anyone have access to her complete testimony? Perhaps this "on-the-dresser-in-their-room" statement was given by Paine or Marina to the police. If anyone can elaborate, please do. It's not surprising that the WC membership left itself conspicuous by its absence of follow-up, however outrageous that is. But it exposed itself big time here. There were AT LEAST two wallets. That appears to be fact.

Regards, JAG

Edited August 8, 2005 by John Gillespie

[Pat Speer]

I've acknowledged my bias in the Tippit case. While people like Myers and Belin have called the Tippit shooting the Rosetta Stone of the case or some such nonsense, insisting that if Oswald killed Tippit then he must have killed Kennedy, I have found quite the opposite. To me, it makes sense that Oswald would kill Tippit, and there's evidence he did kill Tippit. When one accepts that Oswald killed Tippit, however, there are several arguments that Oswald did NOT kill Kennedy that become available. I'm not suggesting people who believe Oswald did not kill Tippit should change their minds because of these arguments, only that people undecided on the issue realize that they can decide Oswald did kill Tippit without weakening their belief that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

Reasons why Oswald killing Tippit makes it easier for me to believe Oswald did not kill Kennedy:

1. The paraffin test peformed on Oswald revealed that he quite possibly had fired a pistol, but that he had most likely not fired a rifle. If one says he did not shoot Tippit, then one calls into question the validity of the entire test, and therefore can not use the test to call into question Oswald's firing a rifle.

2. If Oswald was at the Tippit site then he was walking in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment. If Oswald knew Ruby, of course, this indicates a larger conspiracy. As Oswald was not a great shot, and had apparently not been practicing, his being a sniper would therefore seem unlikely. If Oswald was not at the site, and not heading towards Ruby's, this argument must be ignored.

3. Both Robert Oswald and Marina Oswald felt that Lee was hiding something when they talked to him at the police station. Some of Lee's comments to Robert, which made Robert think Lee killed Kennedy, make sense when put into the context that Lee DID kill Tippit. If Lee did not kill Tippit, then Oswald's strangeness would seem to be related solely to the Kennedy assassination, and his brother's instincts become more likely.

4. Oswald fought with the police in the theater, saying "well, this is it" or something similar; this makes total sense if he'd just killed a cop and assumed they were gonna kill him. It makes less sense if he merely assumed they'd identified him as a suspect in the Kennedy assassination. If that was the case, he would certainly have been wondering how they knew where he was; his first instinct in fact would probably have been that they were looking for someone else. His pulling a revolver then would seem to be an over-reaction. That Oswald soon calmed down and played his games with the cops and the press indicated he was NOT suicidal. Many, including his brother, believed that Oswald enjoyed the cat-and-mouse interrogations and press conferences. If that is why he killed Kennedy (the "great man" theory espoused by the WC, Priscilla Johnson-Mcmillan, Posner, et al) then why would Oswald have jeopardized his moment in the spotlight by inviting his own death in the theater, with no audience to speak of? If Oswald did not kill Tippit, then his actions in the theater make no sense, since they are not indicative of a man who killed Kennedy to gain attention, nor of someone who was innocent. By alllowing the Tippit killing to explain Oswald's actions in the theater, therefore, one eradicates that his violent action was related to the likelihood he killed Kennedy, and makes his being innocent of that crime all the more likely.

I'll try to think of some more...

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I've acknowledged my bias in the Tippit case.  While people like Myers and Belin have called the Tippit shooting the Rosetta Stone of the case or some such nonsense, insisting that if Oswald killed Tippit then he must have killed Kennedy, I have found quite the opposite.

Obviously, if the WC assumed that Oswald killed Tippit, it bolstered the WC's ultimate conclusion that Oswald was a violent man, and supported its contention that he was making good his escape.  Why else would an otherwise innocent man kill a cop who hadn't even drawn his firearm?  As you rightly assert, the one doesn't necessarily demonstrate the other, but that's a nuance the WC wasn't anxious to entertain.  It served the Commission's purpose to conclude otherwise.

To me, it makes sense that Oswald would kill Tippit, and there's evidence he did kill Tippit. 

Absolutely true, Pat.  However, closer scrutiny of each such piece of evidence only calls into further question the conclusion.

When one accepts that Oswald killed Tippit, however, there are several arguments that Oswald did NOT kill Kennedy that become available.  I'm not suggesting people who believe Oswald did not kill Tippit should change their minds because of these arguments, only that people undecided on the issue realize that they can decide Oswald did kill Tippit without weakening their belief that Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

Reasons why Oswald killing Tippit makes it easier for me to believe Oswald did not kill Kennedy:

1. The paraffin test peformed on Oswald revealed that he quite possibly had fired a pistol, but that he had most likely not fired a rifle.  If one says he did not shoot Tippit, then one calls into question the validity of the entire test, and therefore can not use the test to call into question Oswald's firing a rifle.

Actually, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition.  Some who argue that the negative result for the cheeks is inconclusive do so on the basis that the rifle allegedly didn't disperse particulate widely enough to register.  Others argue that the test wasn't conducted properly.  Still others will point out that many jurisdictions no longer conducted such tests, even at the time, because of the likelihood of false positive and/or false negatives, rendering both test results questionable, irrespective of whether they were positive or negative. 

Meanwhile, it is also true that the positive results on the hands are not necessarily conclusive.  Other substances [paper, wood, paint, etc.] leave residue that will create a false positive.  Since Oswald handled all of the above, a false positive is possible, and perhaps even likely. 

However, when one investigates a bit further and locates the diagrams indicating the pockets of residue that created the positive result on the hands, one is astonished to learn that the residue is actually located in areas [palms?] where it is highly unlikely to have settled, had it transpired naturally through gun use.  In fact, the test results are more likely indicative of either a conclusion unrelated to gun use, or a falsified test result than anything else.  I am at a loss to explain why somebody falsifying a positive test result on the hands wouldn't also do the same thing with the facial test.

I am agnostic on this topic, but certainly would like an explanation for why it appears the test result on the hands do not replicate the pattern one would expect indicative of the firing of a handgun.

2. If Oswald was at the Tippit site then he was walking in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment.  If Oswald knew Ruby, of course, this indicates a larger conspiracy.  As Oswald was not a great shot, and had apparently not been practicing, his being a sniper would therefore seem unlikely.  If Oswald was not at the site, and not heading towards Ruby's, this argument must be ignored.

I would take issue with this in only one respect.  Your contention is that if Oswald didn't kill Tippit, it severs his connection to the proximity of Ruby's apartment.  However, when viewed from another perspective, the killer [even if not Oswald] is still in close proximity to Ruby's apartment.  It doesn't acquit Ruby of suspicion as a player in a broader conspiracy, nor does it diminish other evidence that the Ruby and Oswald might have known each other.  The killer may still have been walking toward Ruby's apartment when stopped by Tippit.  In this scenario, the killer and Ruby might still have been pursuing a conspiratorial agenda; it's just that Oswald wasn't the killer.   

3. Both Robert Oswald and Marina Oswald felt that Lee was hiding something when they talked to him at the police station.  Some of Lee's comments to Robert, which made Robert think Lee killed Kennedy, make sense when put into the context that Lee DID kill Tippit.  If Lee did not kill Tippit, then Oswald's strangeness would seem to be related solely to the Kennedy assassination, and his brother's instincts become more likely.

One might as well read chicken entrails or tea leaves as try to divine anything concrete from such observations.  Assuming that I found myself in his circumstance, and made some of the cryptic comments attributed to Oswald, I would hope that nobody reached any definitive conclusions about my guilt or innocence based on those alone.  In the end result, it was Oswald who assured his brother that he was innocent of all charges, and insisted that Robert not believe "this so-called evidence against me."  If Oswald seemed stressed, or nervous, or secretive and tight-lipped, I don't find this an astonishingly surprising response, given his circumstance. 

While I cannot certify that Psychological Stress Analysis is as superior to standard polygraph exams as the PSE inventors asserted [i've spoken with practitioners of both, and they seem to disdain each other, so who knows?], it is nevertheless worth noting that many years later, when former CIA analyst George O'Toole provided tapes of Oswald stating "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir" to PSE experts in a blind circumstance [they didn't know who had uttered the denial], they uniformly agreed that the tapes indicated the man told the truth. 

Now, had Oswald only said "I didn't shoot the President," that would have left the Tippit matter open to our continuing speculation.  It seems, however, that such a blanket denial closes the issue, if one is prepared to accept that the PSE is the quantum leap forward its designers maintain it to be. 

4. Oswald fought with the police in the theater, saying "well, this is it" or something similar; this makes total sense if he'd just killed a cop and assumed they were gonna kill him.  It makes less sense if he merely assumed they'd identified him as a suspect in the Kennedy assassination. 

I'm at a loss to follow your thinking in this thread, Pat.  A few days back, in the self-same post, you seemed to argue from both sides of the fence: 

QUOTE:

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.

And yet, only a few sentences later, you said:

QUOTE:

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.

If not through the "Hidell" ID you believe he was carrying [which I do not], how did Oswald come to expect that he'd been "framed for killing the President?"  You seem undecided on this issue, and I'd like you to expand on your thinking, so we can know whether or not you think Oswald somehow realized he been "patsified" [i think was the term you used.]  It is my belief that he knew something was up, as it would rationalize him returning to the boarding house to retrieve his handgun.  [And odd item to leave behind on 11/22 if one were planning to assassinate the President and try to escape with $13 in one's pocket.]

I'm not sure I understand why you imagine Oswald had less reason to fear being murdered by police if involved in killing Kennedy than from killing Tippit.  Seems to me that either crime could/would justify police using lethal force against him.  

If that was the case, he would certainly have been wondering how they knew where he was; his first instinct in fact would probably have been that they were looking for someone else.  His pulling a revolver then would seem to be an over-reaction. 

Doesn't it just?  There is so much wrong with the received version of events inside the theatre that one is hard pressed to fashion an explanation for all the discrepancies, anomalies and contradictions.  The same man who had only just pulled out a handgun and tried to fire it at police, when subdued by the same police, yells "I'm not resisting arrest!"  [????]  While Nick MacDonald told the WC about his valiant struggle to avoid being shot by this dangerous assassin, on the day of the event itself, he said no such thing.  In an article in the next day's DMN, MacDonald actually said: "He didn't give us too much trouble."  [????] 

I've tried over the years to parse the police reports and news accounts, the testimony of officers and witnesses, and compared it to subsequent statements and latter-day revelations such as were offered by newsman Earl Golz.  In the end, I was left only unsure whether Oswald had even drawn his weapon, and convinced that the only reason he wasn't killed on the spot was because no policeman was assured of being able to take a clean shot at him without hitting a fellow officer.  Perhaps the reason police failed to take the names of witnesses inside the theatre was that they were anxious nobody suggest that Oswald didn't draw a weapon and/or that the police were the ones committing the "over-reaction."  [Oswald's faulty firing pin would have made it a pointless exercise in any case, raising the issue of how a weapon that killed Tippit at 1:15-ish was rendered inoperable by a half hour later....]     

That Oswald soon calmed down and played his games with the cops and the press indicated he was NOT suicidal.  Many, including his brother, believed that Oswald enjoyed the cat-and-mouse interrogations and press conferences.  If that is why he killed Kennedy (the "great man" theory espoused by the WC, Priscilla Johnson-Mcmillan, Posner, et al)  then why would Oswald have jeopardized his moment in the spotlight by inviting his own death in the theater, with no audience to speak of? 

If the foregoing is true, why did Oswald deny having committed this highly important political act, rather than take full credit and expound upon the political reasons for it?  It's an odd assassin who seeks the limelight, but then shies away from it when it arrives.  [i realize that you're not taking this position, Pat, but rather discounting it.]  Still, it remains a question that the proponents have yet to ask, let alone answer.

If Oswald did not kill Tippit, then his actions in the theater make no sense, since they are not indicative of a man who killed Kennedy to gain attention, nor of someone who was innocent. 

This is, of course, pure conjecture.  While I thank you for any indication of your thinking in reaching your conclusions, it should be noted that your characterization of what happened inside the Texas Theatre seems to take at face value what the WC concluded, which is neither safe nor advisable.  I know that in past years a number a the posters here [myself included] have studied the police reports and testimony at great length, and have on other forums debated aspects of this episode, seeking a uniform chronology of events that might support the WC conclusions of what happened in that darkened theatre.  I truly wish I could say that we were successful, or that a singular version of events was achieved.

By alllowing the Tippit killing to explain Oswald's actions in the theater, therefore, one eradicates that his violent action was related to the likelihood he killed Kennedy, and makes his being innocent of that crime all the more likely.

One of the posters here who has delved at great length into the conflicting versions of events offered by the officers present is Greg Parker.  I do hope that he will weigh in with some of his pithy observations, for they may illustrate why it is unwise to accept what the Commission offered vis a vis what transpired inside the theatre.

I'll try to think of some more...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Greg Parker]

One of the posters here who has delved at great length into the conflicting versions of events offered by the officers present is Greg Parker.  I do hope that he will weigh in with some of his pithy observations, for they may illustrate why it is unwise to accept what the Commission offered vis a vis what transpired inside the theatre.

- RCD

Robert, I caught Stevie Wright on TV the other night being "honored" on This is Your Life. HE was pithy!

I'll try and dig something out. Bottom line: I think Oswald hit McDonald because McDonald was planting the pistol on him.

Some points toward this conclusion: as you say, McDonald originally said Oswald gave no trouble; no charges of attempted murder or resist arrest were laid; other cops were there when McDonald arrived - yet didn't go in until he did arrive to lead the way; the testimony suggests Oswald did not swing a punch until McDonald put his hand on Oswald's waist (this is when I believe he was actually trying to shove the gun into Oswald's hand or waistband); there was a shotgun aimed point blank at Oswald (according to one report) at around the time Oswald started shouting that he wasn't resisting; the story of the jammed thumb seemed designed to cover for what they knew was a faulty firing pin; Reiland's "error" in filming what was happening without the right filter.

[Charles Black]

Having studied the sound premises and arguments which are set forth by Mr. Dunne in post #116 and Mr. Speer in post #115, whom both have in the past had theories with which I am usually in at least somewhat agreement, I feel that in this instance they are overcomplicating an area that may, in fact, be much more simple and basic, and not neccessarily that crucial to the determination of who killed JFK.

I am still more comfortable with the very simple logic which I set forth in post #113, though the result of knowing who killed officer Tippit does not neccessarily lead us closer to the solution of WHAT killed JFK.

I have found repeatedly that plans, less complicated and involving fewer participants, have a much higher success ratio than those involving larger numbers of people with many layered plans and inevitably a myriad of contingency plans. The more complicated the plan, the more potential errors. The more persons involved, the more voices that may, even inadvertantly, be heard. We must also keep in mind that in operations where many operators are involved, some very critical positions are being held by persons that are not wearing Phi Beta Kappa keys or are Rhodes Scholars.

As we continue to devote more Time, which itself is becoming an major enemy, and as we contemplate that the 42 years is soon becoming 43, and if we take an objective look and analysis at this, we are faced with the sad conclusion that we are progressing at snails pace.

Perhaps if my evaluation of our progress is accepted, we should consider that time consuming discussion over matters such as if Oswald was in reality administered a nitrates test, and even if these tests, are at this time considered of much value, does this prove, really prove, anything? Does it prove that regardless of whether or not he murdered Tippit, that he was a shooter in the Presidential assassination? Regardless of whether nitrates were on his inner or outer hand, we all realize that they could have been derived from other sources at his work or even from handling a firearm that had somewhat recently been fired. Proof or disproof of the presence of nitrates does not lead me closer to my personal conclusion that the perpretators, the true conspirators to both murder and cover were a consortium or cabal of Executive Dept., Justice Dept. and intelligence agency "elements", some of whom were influenced by what they assumed to be True Patriotism, who had the backing of the real power in the U.S., those controllers of the money. Call them industrialists, oil interests--- yankees and cowboys.....whatever! Regardless of the name we know what this element is. It was and is THE POWER.

Perhaps my "Keep it Simple" theory falls far beneath the stratospheric intellectual level where a few researchers have chosen to reside, and I am certainly not referring to any members of this forum. When I have attempted at times past to operate in this thin air, my more earthbound ideas seem to dissipate and spread beyond any area of my control.

I will end my sermon with an observation and thought that I now have long held.

There is not a shooter behind every bush and in every window and in every photo. It doesn't really matter what suspicious individuals may have watched the happenings. How can you prove, even if there, that they had pre knowledge. As long as more than one person knew in advance---the conspiracy is proven.....whether there was one shooter or 35.

Not everyone in the executive branch, judicial branch, FBI, CIA

NSA, secret service, military intelligence, and DPD were involved. Only a select few.

The very few "planning" conspirators were on such a high plateau, that even if still alive, cannot be reached. Those who were on the Dealey field of play, or shall we call it Texas Stadium, are no doubt dead and are really of no consequence in my quest. They were dispensible pawns.

There are at present, forces within the U.S. and the global community that owe their success, exalted positions, monetary and power status and their future in the "NEW WORLD ORDER" to those events in TEXAS STADIUM.

Once again IMHO only, the only, tho unlikely, relief that we the research community should realistically look forward to would be an independent investigation with powers of full evidence disclosure, witness immunity and unchallenged subpoena power. Even at that, I would expect at most a conclusion

that would sound similar to:

" A conspiracy did in fact exist to Murder Pres. J.F.K. It is likely that the conspirators may have included some members who were at the upper echelon of the U.S. government. Those who were thought to have been involved are all deceased and without the possibility of due process. We therefore feel that in deference to the families involved and without their subjection to due process, that to divulge actual names would be a travesty. It has been deemed that further investigation into this matter would at this late time be fruitless. This investigation is forever concluded!

Some of you will no doubt write me off as a "dim wit" but I really do not care. We have been for too many years willing to sit on our spreading butts, smoke our pipes, and amuse ourselves with "educated" jibberish instead of lifting our collective butts and making a TRUE EFFORT to get this issue before an investigating body that might at least RULE SOMETHING.

We have, thru a great amount of very sound thought, expanded this investigation to encompass probably hundreds of tangents, all interesting tho perhaps not neccessarily cogent, which I am sure contain many thousands of pounds of written minutae. The further that these spokes (tangents) have expanded from the hub, the more buried in trivia we have become.

I feel that the exploration and investigation of a great many of these "go nowhere" leads has contributed greatly to this most brilliant coverup of a very successful coup d' etat.

I am certain that those who still cover must relish in the infighting among we researchers who still cling to our egos and pet theories and have been unable to get our minds out of TEXAS STADIUM and focus on the conspiracy.

Charlie Black

[John Dolva]

One of the posters here who has delved at great length into the conflicting versions of events offered by the officers present is Greg Parker.  I do hope that he will weigh in with some of his pithy observations, for they may illustrate why it is unwise to accept what the Commission offered vis a vis what transpired inside the theatre.

- RCD

Robert, I caught Stevie Wright on TV the other night being "honored" on This is Your Life. HE was pithy!

I'll try and dig something out. Bottom line: I think Oswald hit McDonald because McDonald was planting the pistol on him.

Some points toward this conclusion: as you say, McDonald originally said Oswald gave no trouble; no charges of attempted murder or resist arrest were laid; other cops were there when McDonald arrived - yet didn't go in until he did arrive to lead the way; the testimony suggests Oswald did not swing a punch until McDonald put his hand on Oswald's waist (this is when I believe he was actually trying to shove the gun into Oswald's hand or waistband); there was a shotgun aimed point blank at Oswald (according to one report) at around the time Oswald started shouting that he wasn't resisting; the story of the jammed thumb seemed designed to cover for what they knew was a faulty firing pin; Reiland's "error" in filming what was happening without the right filter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looking at mugshot and autopsy photo's I'd say there was maybe more than just the pointy end of the shot gun aimed at Oswlad. The bruise on his temple looks like the imprint of the base of the stock of the shot gun. Also there is a bruise on his neck, and his left eye seems swollen plus across the bridge of his nose.. Also clear imprints of a hand gripping his arm forcefully.

[Steve Thomas]

Greg,

the testimony suggests Oswald did not swing a punch until McDonald put his hand on Oswald's waist

I have always taken it on faith that during his arrest at the Texas Theater, Lee Harvey Oswald took out his gun and attempted to shoot arresting Officer M.N. McDonald. This is based on accounts of an audible "snap" that was heard. Later, we read accounts that the only reason Oswald's attempted murder of McDonald didn't succeed because of a bent primer or a "misfire"

I would like to contend that perhaps the "snap" that was heard was either the sound of something else, or was accidently caused by the officers seeing the gun and immediately reacting to take it away from Oswald and that Oswald did not attempt to shoot Officer McDonald.

I say this for the following three reasons:

1)

Here are the after action reports of the arresting officers filed with Police Chief Curry on Decembers 2 - 5, 1963.

They can be found in the Dallas Police Archives, Box 2, Folder# 7

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box2.htm

E.L. Cunningham: "When I reached the seating area on the main floor, several officers were in the process of disarming and handcuffing the suspect. ...I did not see anything that indicated that any more force was used than was absolutely necessary to effect the arrest".

Paul Bentley: "Just as I entered the lower floor, I saw Patrolman McDonald fighting with this suspect. I saw this suspect pull a pistol from his shirt, so I went to Patrolman McDonald's aid immediately"

Bob Carroll: "When I arrived at the lower floor, Lee Harvey Oswald was resisting vigorously"...At this time I observed a pistol with the muzzle pointed in my direction. I grabbed the pistol and stuck it in my belt..."

Ray Hawkins: "The subject stood up and as Officer McDonald started to search him, he struck Officer McDonald in the face. The subject and Officer McDonald began to fight and both fell down in the seats. Officer Walker and I ran toward the subject and grabbed him by his left arm. The subject had reached in his belt for a gun and Officer McDonald was holding his right hand with the gun in it".

T.A. Hutson: "As I entered the row of seats behind the suspect he jumped up and hit Officer McDonald in the face with his fist, Officer McDonald was in the seat next to the one in which the suspect was originally sitting, and the suspect was up out of his seat struggling with Officer McDonald. I reached over the back of the seats and placed my right arm around the suspect's neck and pulled him up on back of the seat. Officer C.T. WAlker came up and was struggling with the suspect's left hand, and as Officer McDonald struggled with with the suspect's right hand, he moved it to his waist and drew a pistol and as Officer McDonald tried to disarm the suspect, I heard the pistol snap".

K.E. Lyon: "Enroute to the City Hall, Oswald refused to answer all questions. and he kept repeating, "Why am I being arrested? I know I was carrying a gun, but why else am I being arrested"?

M.N. McDonald: "When I got within a foot of him, I told the suspect to get to his feet. He stood up immediately, bringing his hands up about shoulder high and saying, "Well it's over now". I was reaching for his waist and he struck me on the nose with his left hand. With his right hand, he reached for his waist and both our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt. We both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol. ... I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip I heard the snap of the hammer and the pistol crossed over my left cheek, causing a four inch scratch".

As you can see from reading these reports, at no time in the first 10 to 12 days following the assassination, did any of the arresting officers on the scene claim that Oswald tried to shoot M.N. McDonald. If the pistol did go off and cause a "snap" of the hammer falling into place, it was because McDonald jerked it out of Oswald's pants.

2)

When questioned by Captain Fritz on the afternoon of November 22nd, Fritz did not accuse Oswald of trying to shoot Officer McDonald.

Fritz (4H214)

Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he killed Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. Sir?

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him if he shot Tippit?

Mr. FRITZ. Oh, yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he say.

Mr. FRITZ. He denied it---that he did not. The only thing he said he had done wrong, "The only law I violated was in the show; I hit the officer in the show; he hit me in the eye and I guess I deserved it." He said, "That is the only law I violated." He said, "That is the only thing I have done wrong."

3)

If Oswald had attempted to shoot Officer McDonald, why were no charges of attempted murder filed as they were in the case of Governor Connally?

I believe that the account of Oswald trying to shoot McDonald was invented after the fact.

Steve Thomas