I agree that it may be impossible to ever determine with certainty what they are looking at, but it makes a lot more sense to me that it is a citation or notebook belonging to Tippit. The investigators are looking through it. That means no one in the vicinity, like a witness. is in possession of the item and can provide whatever they need from the wallet or book. In a traffic stop, the officer doesn't take your wallet and look through it for an ID. It is being handled more like evidence. And a citation book might provide some indication of the last person Tippit encountered. For all they knew, maybe Tippit had stopped someone and was writing that person a citation when he was shot. The DPD would have every reason to look through it as depicted for a name of a potential suspect. A bystander might conclude it is a wallet of the suspect and when Oswald later comes to be known link the events in their mind (i.e. they were looking at Oswald's wallet).
An Oswald wallet makes no sense at all if the DPD was involved in framing Oswald. An Oswald wallet left at the scene - either dropped by Oswald himself or planted to frame him for the Tippit crime - would have been a critical piece of evidence. The entire point of any planting an Oswald wallet would be to link him to the crime. There is no logical reason in either the LNer or CTer view to suppress a wallet that links Oswald to the crime. Whether real or fake it would be critical evidence. And why not immediately call in the name of the suspect linked to the wallet if that is what the item is? That didn't happen but if a wallet had been left at the scene it would have been reasonable for the police to conclude it was dropped by the shooter. Under the circumstances, the very first thing they do is call in the name of the individual linked to the wallet. It just doesn't add up as a wallet left at the scene.
Let's revisit your pathetic arguments...
it makes a lot more sense to me that it is a citation or notebook belonging to Tippit. The investigators are looking through it. Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?
In a traffic stop, the officer doesn't take your wallet and look through it for an ID.There was no traffic stop.
For all they knew, maybe Tippit had stopped someone and was writing that person a citation when he was shot. The DPD would have every reason to look through it as depicted for a name of a potential suspect. If it was a notebook, sure.. I would agree. But if it was, where did Westbrook get the names Oswald and Hidell from? Bob Barrett said Westbrook asked him if he knew either name, so where did he get those names? It couldn't have been a notebook because in the sequence of events there was no time for Tippit to write down either name and the person he was talking to wouldn't have given him two names to begin with.
A bystander might conclude it is a wallet of the suspect and when Oswald later comes to be known link the events in their mind (i.e. they were looking at Oswald's wallet).So now an FBI agent becomes "a bystander"? Are you for real?
An Oswald wallet makes no sense at all if the DPD was involved in framing Oswald. Who ever said that the DPD was involved in framing Oswald? Some officers perhaps (just like they framed all those others later cleared by the innocence project) but the entire department? Nobody ever claimed that!
An Oswald wallet left at the scene - either dropped by Oswald himself or planted to frame him for the Tippit crime - would have been a critical piece of evidence. The entire point of any planting an Oswald wallet would be to link him to the crime.Indeed.
There is no logical reason in either the LNer or CTer view to suppress a wallet that links Oswald to the crime.True, but what makes you think the wallet found at the Tippit scene was the one that they suppressed?
That didn't happen but if a wallet had been left at the scene it would have been reasonable for the police to conclude it was dropped by the shooter. Reasonable maybe. At first glance, but if you think about it; No! An officer at the scene isn't in a position to reach that conclusion. It's not the job of a police officer (not even a Captain) to make such a determination.
Under the circumstances, the very first thing they do is call in the name of the individual linked to the wallet. That's just your opinion and it's completely wrong.
