Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Richard Smith]

Richard, you're using way too much logic and common sense here.

What we see in the footage could have been a "citation book" or a note pad of some sort, belonging to Tippit.  In fact, that was my stance on it for years though now I have accepted that it may be a wallet.  But you're right, that it is some sort of a citation book or notepad shouldn't be ruled out, though if a citation book, Tippit didn't write anything down related to the man he stopped.

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. 

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

Once again you haven't been paying attention or just simply ignore what already has been written.

FBI agent Barrett said it was a wallet and when Capt. Westbrook was looking at it he asked Barrett if he knew somebody called Oswald or Hidell.

Your typical "what the conspirators would have done" BS is destroyed by this single fact.

[Bill Brown]

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.

I agree with everything you've said above.

[Bill Brown]

Once again you haven't been paying attention or just simply ignore what already has been written.

FBI agent Barrett said it was a wallet and when Capt. Westbrook was looking at it he asked Barrett if he knew somebody called Oswald or Hidell.

Your typical "what the conspirators would have done" BS is destroyed by this single fact.

You state as a fact that it was an Oswald/Hidell wallet just because Barrett said so decades later.

[Richard Smith]

Once again you haven't been paying attention or just simply ignore what already has been written.

FBI agent Barrett said it was a wallet and when Capt. Westbrook was looking at it he asked Barrett if he knew somebody called Oswald or Hidell.

Your typical "what the conspirators would have done" BS is destroyed by this single fact.

LOL.  You are like a robot.  Try to actually think instead of just repeating something over and over.  And this must be a singular example of you reaching a conclusion based on what someone said.  I've laid out the reason that it is isn't a wallet in detail.  It doesn't add up.

[Jon Banks]

You state as a fact that it was an Oswald/Hidell wallet just because Barrett said so decades later.

Barrett explained why he waited to go public with this story. But there's enough corroboration to conclude that he's telling the truth:


FBI Man: Dallas cop lied

After 50 years, an FBI agent on the scene believes that the Dallas officer who brought Oswald to the police station is lying about finding the wallet in Oswald’s possession.

Barrett attacked Bentley’s claim that he found Oswald’s wallet for the first time in a WFAA news story last November. “They said they took the wallet out of his pocket in the car? That’s so much hogwash. That wallet was in (Captain) Westbrook’s hand.”

Why did Barrett wait 50 years to accuse Bentley of lying and obstruction of justice?

It was not a fight he cared to pick. Bentley had been Dallas’s chief polygraph examiner during 1963. It would have been professionally hazardous for Barrett to challenge Bentley before his death in 2008.

So what does the story of the wallet tell us?

It was not public knowledge that Oswald’s wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene until 1996. FBI agent Jim Hosty, who had responsibility for watching Oswald, wrote that a wallet containing identification for both Oswald and “Alek Hidell” was found near a pool of blood. Again, no witness ever saw the wallet on the ground.  A second witness, patrolman Leonard Jez, told a conference in 1999 that the wallet was identified at the murder scene as belonging to Oswald.

Rookstool told WFAA that the testimony of Barrett and Croy, Tippit’s billfold, and the WFAA film prove that Oswald’s wallet was at the scene of the policeman’s murder.

Rookstool’s finding is contested by researcher Dale Myers. On his website, Myers argues that the wallet seen on the videotape is thinner and has a straight flap rather than the rounded flap of the arrest wallet.  Whether Myers’s contention is correct or not, Myers has also spent years publicizing Barrett’s story that the wallet at the murder scene contained identification for both Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell...

https://jfkfacts.org/oswalds-wallet-planted-at-the-tippit-crime-scene/

[Martin Weidmann]

You state as a fact that it was an Oswald/Hidell wallet just because Barrett said so decades later.

No. I state as a fact that Barrett said that it was an Oswald/Hidell wallet. He did say that, right?

So, I'll ask you again; was Barrett lying?

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  You are like a robot.  Try to actually think instead of just repeating something over and over.  And this must be a singular example of you reaching a conclusion based on what someone said.  I've laid out the reason that it is isn't a wallet in detail.  It doesn't add up.

And this must be a singular example of you reaching a conclusion based on what someone said.

And now you want me to reach a conclusion based on what you (just another someone, right?) said? LOL

I've laid out the reason that it is isn't a wallet in detail.  It doesn't add up.

No. You have given your biased opinion based on nothing more than speculation. And earlier, based on idiotic reasoning (if you can call it that) it just didn't make sense to you that it was a wallet. Now you're sure that it isn't a wallet? Hilarious!

Btw, I don't care if it adds up for you or not.

Information provided by an FBI agent who was actually there carries far more weight than your pathetic opinion.

And btw names of potential suspects not yet in custody are never broadcast on police radio. Fritz could have used Oswald's name on the radio after he didn't show up at the line up at the TSBD but he didn't. Even after Oswald was arrested his name was not mentioned on police radio, so your entire argument is bogus.