The Oswald Wallet Paradox

[John Iacoletti]

5 wallets, not 5 ID cards.

[Thomas Graves]

5 wallets, not 5 ID cards.

Not at that point, anyway.

Maybe he had a leather fetish?

--  MWT 

[Martin Weidmann]

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?

Bump for Richard Smith

[Richard Smith]

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?

Yes, it is pretty obvious.  There is a vast difference between someone who is merely a possible person of interest and a suspect.  The circumstances dictate that distinction.  Not being accounted for at his place of work made Oswald a person of interest.  It was suspicious but didn't necessarily provide a direct link to the crime. The DPD noted it and intended to follow up.  Which they did.

You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize, however, that finding an unaccounted for wallet at the scene of a murdered police officer that has just been committed minutes beforehand on a public street makes the individual identified in the wallet a suspect.  The circumstances point to a connection between the wallet and the crime.  The DPD could also quickly check with witnesses at that location to determine whether the person in any photograph contained in the wallet was similar in appearance to the assailant.  He was.  In fact, these same witnesses would later confirm Oswald was the murderer.  Thus, the DPD could have quickly confirmed that the wallet owner was their suspect.  As a result, the person whose identity was contained in that wallet would obviously be considered armed and dangerous and the DPD would have immediately radioed that information to their fellow police officers for their own protection and possible apprehension of the suspect.  We know they didn't.  So that lends itself to the conclusion that this was not Oswald's wallet.

Now have you figured why, if the DPD had discovered Oswald's wallet at the Tippit scene, they not only didn't broadcast his name as a suspect but never later confirmed it was found there?  In fact, they indicated it was found on his person when arrested.  Even though finding Oswald's wallet at the crime would have been great evidence to link him to that crime.  That seems a bit hard to square with all the conspiracy theories that otherwise have the DPD framing Oswald for this crime.  But in this instance, for some inexplicable reason, the DPD not only doesn't frame him but actually suppress fantastic evidence of his guilt in the Tippit murder!  Wow.  And this is the same guy who you and others repeatedly suggest the DPD planted evidence against to frame him but here they are suddenly cautious about publicizing his identity?  Ridiculous.   

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, it is pretty obvious.  There is a vast difference between someone who is merely a possible person of interest and a suspect.  The circumstances dictate that distinction.  Not being accounted for at his place of work made Oswald a person of interest.  It was suspicious but didn't necessarily provide a direct link to the crime. The DPD noted it and intended to follow up.  Which they did.

And yet somehow looking funny to a shoe salesman definitely qualifies as a "direct link to the crime".

[Thomas Graves]

And yet somehow looking funny to a shoe salesman definitely qualifies as a "direct link to the crime".

Iacoletti,

Whether or not the shoe store manager realized it, KGB agents and their handlers liked meeting with each other in a darkened theater.

Take Edward Ellis Smith and the KGB officers the FBI came to call "The Three Musketeers" in Washington, D.C. in 1957, for example. (See page 66)

https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames/mode/2up

Regardless, what he obviously DID realize is that when a 20-something man nervously ducks into his store's alcove to avoid the passing police shortly after the shooting of a policeman, and then sneaks into the nextdoor theater on that workday afternoon, that that guy just might be the "person of interest" that those policemen are looking for.

--  MWT 

Pat Speer at The Education Forum asked about a year ago:

I've been getting side-tracked with a lot of nonsense lately, so I'm hoping someone will know the answer to this and save me some time.

Brewer said he knew a policeman had been shot when he observed Oswald outside his store. This was roughly 15 minutes after the shooting. Well, did someone report the Tippit shooting on the radio within 15 minutes of the shooting? That seems mighty quick, considering there were no police or reporters on the scene, and they would need to be on the scene before a radio station would even think about reporting such a story, right?

Anyone know?
.

David Von Pein replied:

I've often wondered which one of the several Dallas/Fort Worth radio stations Johnny Brewer was listening to when he was standing behind the counter of his Hardy's Shoe Store on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. He doesn't provide that information in his Warren Commission testimony, nor does he provide such info in his December 6, 1963, affidavit or during his brief time on the witness stand during the 1986 mock Oswald trial in London. Such information is also not available in Dale Myers' exhaustive book on J.D. Tippit's murder, "With Malice". [EDIT -- I was in error re: Myers' book; Click Here.]

Perhaps in some later interview Brewer mentioned which radio station he was listening to on November 22nd, but I've never been able to pin it down. That particular detail is also not to be found in Brewer's February 27, 1964, FBI interview.

In any event, it's quite clear that at least one of the radio stations in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area had provided, prior to approximately 1:36 PM (Dallas time), a bulletin concerning the shooting of a police officer in Oak Cliff. We know that whatever radio station Johnny Calvin Brewer was listening to on 11/22/63 most definitely did broadcast such a bulletin (most likely somewhere between 1:30 PM and 1:35 PM).

I agree with Pat Speer that the timing of that initial bulletin concerning the Tippit shooting does seem very fast, given the fact that Officer Tippit wasn't even shot until about 1:14 or 1:15 PM, but the alternative would be to believe that Brewer just made up the part about hearing a radio report about the shooting of a policeman before Brewer ever laid eyes on Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22.

Or, I suppose another alternative would be to believe that Brewer merely conflated the various timelines in his mind when he later told his story about what happened that day. That is to say, via this alternative, Brewer really only heard the information about the shooting of a police officer much later in the day, but his memory got all fuzzy and when he later told people what he remembered, he incorrectly said that the radio report concerning the policeman was something he had heard prior to Oswald poking his head into the lobby of Brewer's shoe store.

Analyzing The Radio Coverage....

If, in fact, Johnny Brewer definitely did hear a radio report about a policeman being shot prior to the time when Brewer saw Lee Oswald lurking in the doorway of the shoe store, I can say with some certainty that one of the stations that Brewer was definitely not listening to on 11/22/63 was KLIF Radio in Dallas....and that's because a timestamp provided by the KLIF announcers during their coverage at 1:48 PM CST indicates that the first KLIF bulletin concerning the shooting of a policeman in Oak Cliff didn't occur for another 14 minutes after that "1:48" timestamp, which would mean that KLIF's first bulletin on the Tippit shooting came at 2:02 PM CST (give or take a couple of minutes). And, of course, by 2:02 PM, Lee Oswald was already in police custody and, in fact, had just entered Dallas Police Headquarters in City Hall a couple of minutes earlier. (The initial bulletin about the Tippit murder comes at 2:25:45 in the video below.)

https://drive.google.com/file/KLIF-Radio (Dallas) (11/22/63) [dead]

Another local station that can be eliminated as being the one John Brewer was tuned-in to on 11/22 is Fort Worth's WBAP Radio, which didn't broadcast anything about the shooting incident in Oak Cliff until approximately 1:58 PM CST (go to 4:00:15 in the video below).

https://drive.google.com/file/WBAP-Radio (Fort Worth) (11/22/63) [dead]

KRLD Radio (Dallas) can also be eliminated as the source for Brewer's information about the Oak Cliff shooting. By my calculations, the first details heard on KRLD about the shooting of a policeman occurred at 2:04 PM Dallas time (at 1:23:31 in the video below).

https://drive.google.com/file/KRLD-Radio (Dallas) (11/22/63) [dead]

KBOX Radio might have been the station that Johnny Brewer had turned on that day, because within the first minute of the KBOX coverage heard below (which equates to about 1:35 PM CST), there's a bulletin which states: "We also have one Dallas detective reported dead on arrival at Parkland Hospital." (If that report was referring to Officer Tippit, then there are two errors in it, because Tippit was taken to Methodist Hospital, not Parkland, and Tippit, of course, was not a "detective". But later radio reports did also make the mistake of calling the slain policeman "Detective Tippit". So that KBOX bulletin probably is referring to Officer Tippit's death. And if that's the case, then Johnny Brewer could have heard about the Tippit shooting prior to seeing Oswald come into the lobby area of his shoe store. And it's also possible that KBOX could have provided a bulletin about the policeman's shooting even earlier than 1:35, but I have no way to confirm whether they did or not, because the version of the KBOX material in my collection begins at about 1:35 PM.)

https://drive.google.com/file/KBOX-Radio (Dallas) (11/22/63) [dead]

Another station that's still in the running for a possible pre-1:35 PM bulletin about the Tippit shooting is Dallas' WFAA Radio. I can't confirm one way or the other whether WFAA broadcast any Tippit bulletins prior to about 1:45 PM, because that's when my copy of their coverage begins. But WFAA was very quick with their first bulletin concerning Oswald's arrest in the Texas Theater, which is a bulletin that occurred within a very few minutes of Oswald's capture (at the 4:20 mark in this WFAA Radio coverage).

For the record, the only other Dallas/Fort Worth radio station that I currently have in my assassination archive is a little bit of coverage from KXOL in Fort Worth, but it has been heavily edited and cannot be used for any kind of a reliable timeline of events.

[Thomas Graves]

So I read some statements and interviews, and I noticed the cops who arrested Oswald said they took his wallet to verify his identity at the theater.  That's an interesting fact, considering Oswald's wallet was also found at officer J.D. Tippet's murder scene.

So could his wallet be in 2 places at the same exact time? Or did he have 2 of the same exact wallets? Is it possible the Dallas police were working to help frame Oswald?

I also noticed something odd in Oswald's murder video. If you listen, you'll hear a car horn right as Oswald is brought out. Then again, while someone shouts "There he is!" And then Ruby steps right in to pop him. The only people in cars down there were cops. Did they set his murder up too?

Could that be how Ruby got into the police garage? Maybe someone should have been questioning the DPD.

Could the "wallet" that was "found" or ... gasp ... "planted" at the scene of the Tippit murder have come from the (drunk?) driver who, about 12 hours earlier, had plowed over a stop sign about 50 yards away?

--  MWT 

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, it is pretty obvious.  There is a vast difference between someone who is merely a possible person of interest and a suspect.  The circumstances dictate that distinction.  Not being accounted for at his place of work made Oswald a person of interest.  It was suspicious but didn't necessarily provide a direct link to the crime. The DPD noted it and intended to follow up.  Which they did.

You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize, however, that finding an unaccounted for wallet at the scene of a murdered police officer that has just been committed minutes beforehand on a public street makes the individual identified in the wallet a suspect.  The circumstances point to a connection between the wallet and the crime.  The DPD could also quickly check with witnesses at that location to determine whether the person in any photograph contained in the wallet was similar in appearance to the assailant.  He was.  In fact, these same witnesses would later confirm Oswald was the murderer.  Thus, the DPD could have quickly confirmed that the wallet owner was their suspect.  As a result, the person whose identity was contained in that wallet would obviously be considered armed and dangerous and the DPD would have immediately radioed that information to their fellow police officers for their own protection and possible apprehension of the suspect.  We know they didn't.  So that lends itself to the conclusion that this was not Oswald's wallet.

You needed 14 days to reply and this is what you came up with? 

Yes, it is pretty obvious.  There is a vast difference between someone who is merely a possible person of interest and a suspect.  The circumstances dictate that distinction.  Not being accounted for at his place of work made Oswald a person of interest.  It was suspicious but didn't necessarily provide a direct link to the crime. The DPD noted it and intended to follow up.  Which they did.

Complete and utter self serving BS. For starters, they did give out a description of the man wanted in the Kennedy murder, which means they were looking for a suspect and not just "a person of interest", unless you want to argue that the man of the description and Oswald were not the same person.

More importantly, in both cases the individual was being sought in connection with a murder, either as a witness or a suspect. Both are deemed to be persons of interest. It is not up to a police officer on patrol or a dispatcher to determine who is a suspect and who isn't. But regardless, names of people involved in police business were never transmitted on the air. You need to consult somebody who knows rather than make up crap like this.

You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize, however, that finding an unaccounted for wallet at the scene of a murdered police officer that has just been committed minutes beforehand on a public street makes the individual identified in the wallet a suspect.

True, you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes... but you do need to be a complete moron! That wallet could have belonged to somebody who just happened to lose it there in the commotion of the moment. I am not saying it was, but at the time they found it, they had no way of knowing if it was related to the crime or not.

The circumstances point to a connection between the wallet and the crime.

What circumstances? Be precise... don't give me the "a policeman got shot and they found a wallet nearby" crap because that doesn't cut it.

The DPD could also quickly check with witnesses at that location to determine whether the person in any photograph contained in the wallet was similar in appearance to the assailant.  He was.  In fact, these same witnesses would later confirm Oswald was the murderer. Thus, the DPD could have quickly confirmed that the wallet owner was their suspect.

Now you are just making stuff up. "Could have checked and could have confirmed"... Whether they could or not, they never did, so your entire argument is BS.

But if you insist that they did check and confirm, please provide the details and be precise.... Where is the report? Who asked who?

As a result, the person whose identity was contained in that wallet would obviously be considered armed and dangerous and the DPD would have immediately radioed that information to their fellow police officers for their own protection and possible apprehension of the suspect.  We know they didn't.  So that lends itself to the conclusion that this was not Oswald's wallet.

Why would a the owner of a wallet, that may or may not be connected to a crime, "obviously" be considered armed and dangerous? You are making selfserving assumptions again.

None of what you have said makes any sense or is ever remotely connected to reality.

Now have you figured why, if the DPD had discovered Oswald's wallet at the Tippit scene, they not only didn't broadcast his name as a suspect but never later confirmed it was found there?  In fact, they indicated it was found on his person when arrested.  Even though finding Oswald's wallet at the crime would have been great evidence to link him to that crime.  That seems a bit hard to square with all the conspiracy theories that otherwise have the DPD framing Oswald for this crime.  But in this instance, for some inexplicable reason, the DPD not only doesn't frame him but actually suppress fantastic evidence of his guilt in the Tippit murder!  Wow.  And this is the same guy who you and others repeatedly suggest the DPD planted evidence against to frame him but here they are suddenly cautious about publicizing his identity?  Ridiculous.   

Now have you figured why, if the DPD had discovered Oswald's wallet at the Tippit scene, they not only didn't broadcast his name as a suspect

Already told you, they never broadcasts names.

but never later confirmed it was found there? In fact, they indicated it was found on his person when arrested.  Even though finding Oswald's wallet at the crime would have been great evidence to link him to that crime.

And how exactly do you know that the wallet now in evidence (the one with the two ID's) isn't the one found at 10th/Patton?

Paul Bentley (who was never called to give even a statement or testify before the WC) said in a TV interview that he took a wallet from Oswald in the car which contained a driver's license and a credit card. Not a word about the Hidell ID. In fact there is no report whatsoever about this wallet and it's content. Kinda strange, don't you think... A DPD officer finds a wallet which contains a fake Hidell ID, which in turn directly links to the MC rifle, and he says nothing about it. Files no report...nothing. The first time we hear about it is months later when the WC was taking testimony.

Gus Rose had just started work when they already had Oswald at the station. He said some officer gave him a wallet which did contain a Hidell ID. Not a word where it came from. Rose doesn't even know the officer who gave him the wallet. Again, not a word; like "this is the guy's wallet and there's a fake ID in it". Nothing of that kind... There is no reason to believe that this could not be the wallet found at from 10th/Patton.

So, why didn't they say they found the wallet at 10th/Patton? That's easy; the officers who were in the car with Oswald had already told people they had taken the wallet from Oswald in the car. Claiming there was a second wallet, found at 10th/Patton, would only complicate matters. After Oswald died it was far easier to just switch wallets and make the one from the car disappear.

That seems a bit hard to square with all the conspiracy theories that otherwise have the DPD framing Oswald for this crime.

Actually, it works fine for a framing theory.

And this is the same guy who you and others repeatedly suggest the DPD planted evidence against to frame him

I have never suggested that the DPD planted evidence against anybody. That they manipulated evidence is beyond doubt, but that's not the same as planting evidence.