Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

Weidmann's only reason for his insane allegations comes from this 1 man who tried to remember a single fact from decades previous. Unbelievable that we even give Weidmann the time of day but watching the crazy ramblings of his extreme paranoia is kinda funny.

JohnM

Weidmann's only reason for his insane allegations comes from this 1 man who tried to remember a single fact from decades previous.

Not really. Ron Reiland, who filmed the wallet being held at the Tippit scene, said on day one, on television, that it was a wallet which he (incorrectly) believed belonged to Tippit.

As far as Barrett, who has always believed Oswald was guilty, is concerned. Bill Brown pointed out recently that he had seen newspaper interviews with Barrett in the 80's well before Barret discussed the matter with Hosty. That would fit perfectly, because until the HSCA hearings most evidence was still secret and locked away at the National Archives. That means that between 1963 and the late 70's Barrett would have had no reason to believe there was something strange going on with the wallet(s).

The same applies to General Walker who saw a photograph of the bullet allegedly taken from his house during a HSCA hearing and he instantly knew it was a substitute, so he started writing to the HSCA who ignored him. It also wasn't until the HSCA hearings that other questionable things started coming out.

In Barrett's case, until the late 70's, he may well have believed that when they referred to Oswald's wallet, it was the one he saw at the Tippit scene. And when he found out that it wasn't, he became convinced the DPD had manipulated the wallet evidence one way or another. His obvious problem was of course that in the 80's he was still an active FBI agent and going public with this information might well have cost him his career. After his retirement he was free to talk and he did, maintaining his story for the rest of his life despite all the vile attacks by LNs.

[Martin Weidmann]

Stop being so paranoid, nobody's attacking you, all we are doing is highlighting your plethora of easily fact checked mistakes, if you didn't type lies, then you'd have nothing to worry about.

JohnM

Yeah right....

highlighting your plethora of easily fact checked mistakes, if you didn't type lies, then you'd have nothing to worry about.

So, a mistake becomes a lie in the same sentence?

But let's fact check some of your mistakes (or are they lies), shall we?

You wrote: "Weidmann's only reason for his insane allegations comes from this 1 man who tried to remember a single fact from decades previous"

Read my previous post and find out that was simply not true.

You wrote: "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID"

That is an outright lie, for which you can not provide a shred of evidence.

You claimed that; "when cornered you usually play the "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked", you can't help yourself."

And that was a lie, notwithstanding your subsequent pathetic response; "I never said that you used those specific words."

You claimed that: "the evidence that Oswald manufactured and then was carrying the Hidell identification at the time of his arrest is beyond all doubt."

Which is a blatant lie. There is no such evidence.

You then said; "The negatives used to manufacture the Hidell ID was found within Oswald's possessions so either Oswald made it or it was planted" which demonstrates clearly that you were only guessing that Oswald manufactured the Hidell ID despite the fact that there is no evidence for it.

Even worse; DPD claimed they found the BY photos in Oswald's belongings during the second search of Ruth Paine's house on SaPersonay afternoon, but we know for a fact that Michael Paine was asked about the photo by an FBI agent on Friday evening and we know that Fritz already had a blown up version of the photo when he talked to Oswald on SaPersonay morning. With that in mind, you might not want to rely on what the DPD said about where they found those negatives.

The whole thing is fishy on me. There is no way Oswald could have made the Hidell ID at home, as it required a reduction of size of the text at the bottom. That means that he could only have made it using profesional photo equipment such as they had at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, but that doesn't add up because he worked there in early 1963 and apparently was already using the Hidell ID in New Orleans.

Can you explain to me in which galaxy it would make sense to make a false ID document and then take the negatives home with you instead of just destroying them?

[John Mytton]

Yeah right....

highlighting your plethora of easily fact checked mistakes, if you didn't type lies, then you'd have nothing to worry about.

So, a mistake becomes a lie in the same sentence?

But let's fact check some of your mistakes (or are they lies), shall we?

You wrote: "Weidmann's only reason for his insane allegations comes from this 1 man who tried to remember a single fact from decades previous"

Read my previous post and find out that was simply not true.

You wrote: "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID"

That is an outright lie, for which you can not provide a shred of evidence.

You claimed that; "when cornered you usually play the "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked", you can't help yourself."

And that was a lie, notwithstanding your subsequent pathetic response; "I never said that you used those specific words."

You claimed that: "the evidence that Oswald manufactured and then was carrying the Hidell identification at the time of his arrest is beyond all doubt."

Which is a blatant lie. There is no such evidence.

You then said; "The negatives used to manufacture the Hidell ID was found within Oswald's possessions so either Oswald made it or it was planted" which demonstrates clearly that you were only guessing that Oswald manufactured the Hidell ID despite the fact that there is no evidence for it.

Even worse; DPD claimed they found the BY photos in Oswald's belongings during the second search of Ruth Paine's house on SaPersonay afternoon, but we know for a fact that Michael Paine was asked about the photo by an FBI agent on Friday evening and we know that Fritz already had a blown up version of the photo when he talked to Oswald on SaPersonay morning. With that in mind, you might not want to rely on what the DPD said about where they found those negatives.

The whole thing is fishy on me. There is no way Oswald could have made the Hidell ID at home, as it required a reduction of size of the text at the bottom. That means that he could only have made it using profesional photo equipment such as they had at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, but that doesn't add up because he worked there in early 1963 and apparently was already using the Hidell ID in New Orleans.

Can you explain to me in which galaxy it would make sense to make a false ID document and then take the negatives home with you instead of just destroying them?

You wrote: "Weidmann's only reason for his insane allegations comes from this 1 man who tried to remember a single fact from decades previous"

Read my previous post and find out that was simply not true.

The only person who said that a wallet at the Tippit crime scene contained the Hidell and Oswald id's was Barrett decades later, the source of your allegation. And Ron Reiland didn't have a clue who the object belonged to, much less an associated name.

You wrote: "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID"

That is an outright lie, for which you can not provide a shred of evidence.

Mr. STERN - What sort of question would he refuse to answer? Was there any pattern to his refusing?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, now, I am not certain whether this would apply then to this particular interview, the first interview or not, in answering this, but I recall specifically one of the interviews asking him about the Selective Service card which he had in the name of Hidell, and he admitted that he was carrying the card, but that he would not admit that he wrote the signature of Hidell on the card, and at that point stated that he refused to discuss the matter further. I think generally you might say anytime that you asked a question that would be pertinent to the investigation, that would be the type of question he would refuse to discuss.

Mr. LEAVELLE. Since you mentioned it, I do remember them talking to him about the New Orleans box and asking him about this other name, this----
Mr. BALL. Alek Hidell?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Yes; and he asked him if he knew Alek Hidell; said he didn't know if he ever heard of the name. He never heard of that and asked him several questions along that line and then after he had denied all knowledge of Alek Hidell, Mr. Kelley asked him, said "Well, isn't it a fact when you were arrested you had an identification card with his name on it in your possession." He kind of grunted, said "Yes, that's right" and he said "How do you explain that?" And, as best my knowledge. he said "I don't explain it."

Mr. BELIN. Was anything in that room--was he asked about knowing Alek Hidell? Or anything about Alek Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. -snip-
Then Captain Fritz interrupted and said, "Well, what about this card we got out of your billfold? This draft registration card, he called it, where it showed A. J. Hidell."
"Well, that is the only time that I recall he kind of flared up and he said, "Now, I have told you all I am going to tell you about that card in my billfold." He said, "You have the card yourself, and you know as much about it as I do." And he showed a little anger. Really the only time that he flared up.

You claimed that; "when cornered you usually play the "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked", you can't help yourself."

And that was a lie, notwithstanding your subsequent pathetic response; "I never said that you used those specific words."

4. Set apart a word to show irony, sarcasm, or skepticism (scare quotes)
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/

You then said; "The negatives used to manufacture the Hidell ID was found within Oswald's possessions so either Oswald made it or it was planted" which demonstrates clearly that you were only guessing that Oswald manufactured the Hidell ID despite the fact that there is no evidence for it.

On the 22nd, Oswald was carrying the Hidell Identification and shortly thereafter the negatives that were used to manufacture the Hidell ID was found amongst Oswald's possessions therefore Oswald at a prior date manufactured the Hidell ID. It ain't rocket science.

The whole thing is fishy on me.(sic)

Your biased opinions are irrelevant!


Fishy on me?


Any more factoids that I can clear up but this time dig deeper because I don't have time to waste with your "fishy" paranoid delusions, k?

Btw and you better be civil next time because your constant anger and violent outbursts are already becoming very tiresome. Just lighten up and be happy!

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

Gerald Hill, “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 298:


As we pulled away from the curb, at that time I was using personnel call number 540 Car 2 and announced that we had a suspect and were en route to the station from the Texas Theater. We asked the suspect who he was but he wouldn’t tell. At that point, Bentley reached into his hip pocket and came out with his billfold which had two ID’s in it: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Hidell ID along with various library and other ID cards.

[Martin Weidmann]

The only person who said that a wallet at the Tippit crime scene contained the Hidell and Oswald id's was Barrett decades later, the source of your allegation. And Ron Reiland didn't have a clue who the object belonged to, much less an associated name.

But both of them said there was a wallet, so let's not pretend it was a notebook (as Richard Smith claimed). And yes, Barrett did indeed say that Westbrook asked him if he knew either Lee Harvey Oswald or Alec Hidell. Whether you like it or not, that information could only have come from the content of the wallet. Unless, that is, Westbrook was privy to that information before anybody else. So, take your pick...

Mr. STERN - What sort of question would he refuse to answer? Was there any pattern to his refusing?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, now, I am not certain whether this would apply then to this particular interview, the first interview or not, in answering this, but I recall specifically one of the interviews asking him about the Selective Service card which he had in the name of Hidell, and he admitted that he was carrying the card, but that he would not admit that he wrote the signature of Hidell on the card, and at that point stated that he refused to discuss the matter further. I think generally you might say anytime that you asked a question that would be pertinent to the investigation, that would be the type of question he would refuse to discuss.

Mr. LEAVELLE. Since you mentioned it, I do remember them talking to him about the New Orleans box and asking him about this other name, this----
Mr. BALL. Alek Hidell?
Mr. LEAVELLE. Yes; and he asked him if he knew Alek Hidell; said he didn't know if he ever heard of the name. He never heard of that and asked him several questions along that line and then after he had denied all knowledge of Alek Hidell, Mr. Kelley asked him, said "Well, isn't it a fact when you were arrested you had an identification card with his name on it in your possession." He kind of grunted, said "Yes, that's right" and he said "How do you explain that?" And, as best my knowledge. he said "I don't explain it."

Mr. BELIN. Was anything in that room--was he asked about knowing Alek Hidell? Or anything about Alek Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. -snip-
Then Captain Fritz interrupted and said, "Well, what about this card we got out of your billfold? This draft registration card, he called it, where it showed A. J. Hidell."
"Well, that is the only time that I recall he kind of flared up and he said, "Now, I have told you all I am going to tell you about that card in my billfold." He said, "You have the card yourself, and you know as much about it as I do." And he showed a little anger. Really the only time that he flared up.

And this is proof of what exactly?

The vague memories of three men about an interrogation that took place six months earlier for which no verbatim record exists. Give me a break. It's just another "a cop said so, so it must be true" argument and not a very good one at that.

On the 22nd, Oswald was carrying the Hidell Identification and shortly thereafter the negatives that were used to manufacture the Hidell ID was found amongst Oswald's possessions therefore Oswald at a prior date manufactured the Hidell ID. It ain't rocket science.

Oswald was carrying the Hidell Identification

Really? Prove it.... oh wait, you can't.

the negatives that were used to manufacture the Hidell ID was found amongst Oswald's possessions therefore Oswald at a prior date manufactured the Hidell ID. It ain't rocket science.

Indeed. It's the science of utter stupidity to jump to a conclusion for which there is no evidence.

But I understand why you desperately want to avoid having to deal with the fact that Oswald had no real opportunity (except at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall) to make the fake ID nor did he have any need for making such a document, as he never used it (that we know of) prior to his arrest.

Your biased opinions are irrelevant!

But yours are relevant, right?   

Any more factoids that I can clear up but this time dig deeper because I don't have time to waste with your "fishy" paranoid delusions, k?

You haven't cleared up any factoids so far.

[Martin Weidmann]

Gerald Hill, “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 298:


As we pulled away from the curb, at that time I was using personnel call number 540 Car 2 and announced that we had a suspect and were en route to the station from the Texas Theater. We asked the suspect who he was but he wouldn’t tell. At that point, Bentley reached into his hip pocket and came out with his billfold which had two ID’s in it: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Hidell ID along with various library and other ID cards.

Hilarious... yet another one who failed to mention any of this is an official report.

Even during his testimony to the Warren Commission his recollection was vague to say the least. He admits that he never held the billfold which means that he relied on what Bentley allegedly said.

Mr. BELIN. Was he asked where he lived?
Mr. HILL. That was the second question that was asked the suspect, and he didn't answer it, either.
About the time I got through with the radio transmission, I asked Paul Bentley, "Why don't you see if he has any identification."
Paul was sitting sort of sideways in the seat, and with his right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect's left hip pocket and said, "Yes, he has a billfold," and took it out.
I never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this identification, I believe, was on the library card.
And he also made the statement that there was some more identification in this other name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came in the paper that he bought the gun under.
Mr. BELIN. Would the name Hidell mean anything? Alek Hidell?
Mr. HILL. That would be similar. I couldn't say specifically that is what it was, because this was a conversation and I never did see it written down, but that sounds like the name that I heard.
Mr. BELIN. Was this the first time you learned of the name?
Mr. HILL. Yes; it was.

[Charles Collins]

Gus Rose, “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 337:


So Officer Stovall and I took the man into the interrogation room. I asked him who he was, but he wouldn’t tell me. He refused to give me a name. I then searched him and found two pieces of identification in his pocket: one had the name Alec Hidell, and the other had the name Lee Oswald. So I said, “Which one of these are you?” He gave me a real strange look and said, “Well, you’re the cop, you figure it out!”

[Martin Weidmann]

Gus Rose, “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, page 337:


So Officer Stovall and I took the man into the interrogation room. I asked him who he was, but he wouldn’t tell me. He refused to give me a name. I then searched him and found two pieces of identification in his pocket: one had the name Alec Hidell, and the other had the name Lee Oswald. So I said, “Which one of these are you?” He gave me a real strange look and said, “Well, you’re the cop, you figure it out!”

You've got to love the contradictions. One the one hand we have Paul Bentley saying he took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. And here we have Gus Rose, claiming he searched Oswald and found "two pieces of identification in his pocket", obviously meaning his wallet.

So, which of the two is lying?

Let's have a look at what Rose told the WC in his testimony;

Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.


That doesn't really match with what he told the author of that book, does it now?