The Oswald Wallet Paradox

[Jerry Freeman]

Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him during the ride to the police station. The next day he is interviewed on television and asked what he found in the wallet to which he replies; the usual stuff; a credit card and a driver's license.

Was that a Visa or Mastercard? State of Texas or Louisiana drivers license?
There is a Living History with Paul Bentley by the Sixth Floor Museum on youtube but I can't get it to upload here for some reason.
Find it and listen to his  with 6th Fl curator Steven [Fagen]? swallowing every spoonful. 
If you watch that video, at 8:20 Bentley states that while collecting evidence at the Tippit scene... some patrol division captain came and told him
that "We've looked everywhere for Oswald but we just got a report that there was a suspect at the Texas Theater..."
I am still wondering why they would have been looking for Oswald in particular at that particular time?
 

[Izraul Hidashi]

Again, there is no confirmation that this is Oswald's wallet.  You have a film/picture of the DPD at the scene looking at some object that appears to be a wallet or something similar.  It could belong anyone there including a witness or perhaps be something like Tippit's citation book.  It makes no sense to suggest someone was trying to frame Oswald but for some unspecified reason the DPD would suppress an Oswald wallet found at the murder scene.  That would be fantastic evidence against Oswald.  His wallet left at the scene of the crime. 

It's laughable to suggest that whomever planted the wallet could not have anticipated that Oswald might have another wallet on him when arrested.  And when in the apparent position to suppress one of these two wallets, they would decide to suppress the one planted at the murder scene! Wow - what a plan.  In which those framing Oswald suppress great evidence of his guilt that they planted at the murder scene for that very purpose.  Logic dictates it's not Oswald's wallet but belongs to someone else at the scene.  Likely a witness or Tippit.

Okay, when you say there's no confirmation I assume you mean that you didn't look at the photo I posted. What does it say? The cop who found it wrote ...

"First on the scene. Recovered Oswald's wallet."  So which part of that statement isn't confirmation that they claimed it was Oswald's wallet? Again, no one is saying that it WAS Oswald's wallet. Except for the police who were trying to frame him. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what's so hard about this? The cops did in fact try to claim they found Oswald's wallet. Why do people keep trying to deny it? The proof is here. It's there.

I get why the Oswald swallowers want to keep ignoring it. Because it proves them wrong. But that's life. Facts are facts. We're trying put things together, not validate Oswald swallowers.

[Richard Smith]

Okay, when you say there's no confirmation I assume you mean that you didn't look at the photo I posted. What does it say? The cop who found it wrote ...

"First on the scene. Recovered Oswald's wallet."  So which part of that statement isn't confirmation that they claimed it was Oswald's wallet? Again, no one is saying that it WAS Oswald's wallet. Except for the police who were trying to frame him. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what's so hard about this? The cops did in fact try to claim they found Oswald's wallet. Why do people keep trying to deny it? The proof is here. It's there.

I get why the Oswald swallowers want to keep ignoring it. Because it proves them wrong. But that's life. Facts are facts. We're trying put things together, not validate Oswald swallowers.

That's a hell of a way to frame someone by suppressing great evidence of their guilt.  His wallet found at the murder scene. This story originates from FBI agent Barrett many years later but he did not mention it in his own report on Nov. 22.  He did not mention it in his WC testimony.  He would have known the probative value of a suspect's wallet found at the murder scene.  Even decades later he made clear that he never handled the wallet or ever saw its contents.  His recollection is that he was asked about Oswald/Hidell by Westbrook as he looked through a wallet.  It's entirely possible he saw the DPD handling a wallet at the scene, and after Oswald's arrest assumed that this wallet had been dropped by the murderer who he later learned was Oswald.  Thus, he conflated events decades later and it becomes "Oswald's wallet" in his memory. 

Here is where you can think for yourself though.  If Oswald's wallet had been dropped at the murder scene - either by Oswald because he was the killer or someone else trying to frame him - what is the first thing the DPD would have done when they discovered it?  Think real hard it's not difficult.  They would have radioed in an APB for a suspect whose name is found in the wallet (i.e. Oswald).  However, no such call was ever made.  At the very least, someone would have mentioned this highly probative evidence in a written report after the fact.  They didn't.  Not Barrett or any of the DPD officers at the scene.  If the purpose of the wallet was to frame Oswald, then any wallet found at the scene with his ID would not have been hidden by the DPD (certainly not by anyone who had left it there to frame him!) but trumpeted to the entire world as evidence of Oswald's guilt.  It wasn't.  What does that tell you?  It wasn't Oswald's wallet. 

[Martin Weidmann]

That's a hell of a way to frame someone by suppressing great evidence of their guilt.  His wallet found at the murder scene. This story originates from FBI agent Barrett many years later but he did not mention it in his own report on Nov. 22.  He did not mention it in his WC testimony.  He would have known the probative value of a suspect's wallet found at the murder scene.  Even decades later he made clear that he never handled the wallet or ever saw its contents.  His recollection is that he was asked about Oswald/Hidell by Westbrook as he looked through a wallet.  It's entirely possible he saw the DPD handling a wallet at the scene, and after Oswald's arrest assumed that this wallet had been dropped by the murderer who he later learned was Oswald.  Thus, he conflated events decades later and it becomes "Oswald's wallet" in his memory. 

Here is where you can think for yourself though.  If Oswald's wallet had been dropped at the murder scene - either by Oswald because he was the killer or someone else trying to frame him - what is the first thing the DPD would have done when they discovered it?  Think real hard it's not difficult.  They would have radioed in an APB for a suspect whose name is found in the wallet (i.e. Oswald).  However, no such call was ever made.  At the very least, someone would have mentioned this highly probative evidence in a written report after the fact.  They didn't.  Not Barrett or any of the DPD officers at the scene.  If the purpose of the wallet was to frame Oswald, then any wallet found at the scene with his ID would not have been hidden by the DPD (certainly not by anyone who had left it there to frame him!) but trumpeted to the entire world as evidence of Oswald's guilt.  It wasn't.  What does that tell you?  It wasn't Oswald's wallet.

what is the first thing the DPD would have done when they discovered it? Think real hard it's not difficult.  They would have radioed in an APB for a suspect whose name is found in the wallet (i.e. Oswald).  However, no such call was ever made. 

There goes Richard again with his special brand of "logic". Clearly you have no idea about law enforcement and their code of conduct. Back in those days police radio was being listened to by all sorts of people... Some things you simply don't put out on the air! What if the wallet was unrelated to the shooting? You really are truly clueless.

At the very least, someone would have mentioned this highly probative evidence in a written report after the fact. 

Just like they did with the wallet taken from Oswald in the car, right?...... Oh wait, I forgot, there's not a word about that anywhere on paper.

If the purpose of the wallet was to frame Oswald, then any wallet found at the scene with his ID would not have been hidden by the DPD (certainly not by anyone who had left it there to frame him!) but trumpeted to the entire world as evidence of Oswald's guilt.  It wasn't.  What does that tell you?

It tells me that you are an idiot. Police normally do not share evidence in an ongoing investigation with the media and general public. And before you go there, yes, the DPD messed up big time in Oswald's case, but even there they did not share all the information they had.

[Richard Smith]

what is the first thing the DPD would have done when they discovered it? Think real hard it's not difficult.  They would have radioed in an APB for a suspect whose name is found in the wallet (i.e. Oswald).  However, no such call was ever made. 

There goes Richard again with his special brand of "logic". Clearly you have no idea about law enforcement and their code of conduct. Back in those days police radio was being listened to by all sorts of people... Some things you simply don't put out on the air! What if the wallet was unrelated to the shooting? You really are truly clueless.

At the very least, someone would have mentioned this highly probative evidence in a written report after the fact. 

Just like they did with the wallet taken from Oswald in the car, right?...... Oh wait, I forgot, there's not a word about that anywhere on paper.

If the purpose of the wallet was to frame Oswald, then any wallet found at the scene with his ID would not have been hidden by the DPD (certainly not by anyone who had left it there to frame him!) but trumpeted to the entire world as evidence of Oswald's guilt.  It wasn't.  What does that tell you?

It tells me that you are an idiot. Police normally do not share evidence in an ongoing investigation with the media and general public. And before you go there, yes, the DPD messed up big time in Oswald's case, but even there they did not share all the information they had.

Martin/Roger has posted some truly idiotic, baseless, contrarian claims over the years but the notion that the police would not broadcast on their own radio frequencies the identity of a potential suspect on the loose after killing a police officer takes the cake.  HA HA HA.  Wow.  Obviously, the police use their radios for the purpose of alerting one another to ongoing events including the identity of a potentially dangerous suspect on the loose.  The very essence of police communication is to protect the public and themselves from a dangerous person.  If they had found a wallet at the scene but the person it belonged to was missing, it would not take Sherlock Holmes to realize that was a potential suspect.  But here we are informed they wouldn't communicate this information to anyone because they are concerned that someone might overhear!  Instead they allow a potential suspect in a cop killing to run amok in the community due to an apparent concern for his rights.  That one is a keeper. 

And that doesn't even get into why the DPD and others would not later document finding Oswald's wallet at the scene.  Radio silence on that one (so to speak!).  The DPD who this contrarian otherwise casts dispersions upon implying they are involved in framing of Oswald never confirms that they found Oswald's wallet at the murder scene even though it would be fantastic evidence in that crime. 

Keep in mind that this contrarian won't take any position on whether this actually is Oswald's wallet or not because that would require him to make an argument to support his position and he is too lazy and cowardly to do that.  Easier to take issue with anything suggested by others.  But this is one of the stupidest rebuttals in the history of this forum.  And that is saying a great deal.  Congrats Roger. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin/Roger has posted some truly idiotic, baseless, contrarian claims over the years but the notion that the police would not broadcast on their own radio frequencies the identity of a potential suspect on the loose after killing a police officer takes the cake.  HA HA HA.  Wow.  Obviously, the police use their radios for the purpose of alerting one another to ongoing events including the identity of a potentially dangerous suspect on the loose.  The very essence of police communication is to protect the public and themselves from a dangerous person.  If they had found a wallet at the scene but the person it belonged to was missing, it would not take Sherlock Holmes to realize that was a potential suspect.  But here we are informed they wouldn't communicate this information to anyone because they are concerned that someone might overhear!  Instead they allow a potential suspect in a cop killing to run amok in the community due to an apparent concern for his rights.  That one is a keeper. 

And that doesn't even get into why the DPD and others would not later document finding Oswald's wallet at the scene.  Radio silence on that one (so to speak!).  The DPD who this contrarian otherwise casts dispersions upon implying they are involved in framing of Oswald never confirms that they found Oswald's wallet at the murder scene even though it would be fantastic evidence in that crime. 

Keep in mind that this contrarian won't take any position on whether this actually is Oswald's wallet or not because that would require him to make an argument to support his position and he is too lazy and cowardly to do that.  Easier to take issue with anything suggested by others.  But this is one of the stupidest rebuttals in the history of this forum.  And that is saying a great deal.  Congrats Roger.

Thank you for putting your complete ignorance on full display by this pathetic ad hominem rant.

But I'll give you an opportunity nevertheless to demonstrate your special kind of "wisdom" to all of us; 

Obviously, the police use their radios for the purpose of alerting one another to ongoing events including the identity of a potentially dangerous suspect on the loose.

Oswald was missing from the roll call at the TSBD. Fritz wanted to talk to him and they knew his name. Now, mr. know-it-all, show us where they put Oswald's name on the air! You can take as much time as you need to weasel out of it, but ultimately you need to put up or shut up! Go on then....

As far as everything else in your rant is concerned, get back to me when you have something of any significance to say.

[Martin Weidmann]

Thank you for putting your complete ignorance on full display by this pathetic ad hominem rant.

But I'll give you an opportunity nevertheless to demonstrate your special kind of "wisdom" to all of us; 

Obviously, the police use their radios for the purpose of alerting one another to ongoing events including the identity of a potentially dangerous suspect on the loose.

Oswald was missing from the roll call at the TSBD. Fritz wanted to talk to him and they knew his name. Now, mr. know-it-all, show us where they put Oswald's name on the air! You can take as much time as you need to weasel out of it, but ultimately you need to put up or shut up! Go on then....

As far as everything else in your rant is concerned, get back to me when you have something of any significance to say.

Hey Richard, have you already figured out why Oswald's name wasn't broadcast on the DPD radio after he was missing at the TSBD roll call and became a person of interest?

[Thomas Graves]

Not just two.  Five!

Ruth Paine turned over 2 more, and Marina an additional one that he left her money in.

Which, if true, tends to support the idea that Oswald felt it necessary to be able to "prove" to authorities and potential witnesses any given day that he was someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald.

--  MWT