JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: William Edney on May 04, 2023, 09:51:14 AM
-
Discuss
-
LHO. He did it in plain sight. Literally holding the smoking gun. Multiple witnesses identified him as the gunman. Pedantic contrarians want to suggest that some of these witnesses didn't see him pull the trigger. He was just standing there at the moment of the shooting with his gun. Rabbit hole defense attorney nonsense like that doesn't change the facts. He also has the same two brands of ammo in his possession when taken into custody that were used on Tippit. It's stone cold certain that LHO killed Tippit. Only the most outlandish loons suggest otherwise in face of the evidence.
-
LHO. He did it in plain sight. Literally holding the smoking gun. Multiple witnesses identified him as the gunman. Pedantic contrarians want to suggest that some of these witnesses didn't see him pull the trigger. He was just standing there at the moment of the shooting with his gun. Rabbit hole defense attorney nonsense like that doesn't change the facts. He also has the same two brands of ammo in his possession when taken into custody that were used on Tippit. It's stone cold certain that LHO killed Tippit. Only the most outlandish loons suggest otherwise in face of the evidence.
It is a FACT that the man who shot JD Tippit was seen removing the spent shells ONE AT A TIME as he walked away from the scene.
It is also a FACT that the spent shells in a S&W revolver are all removed at the same at the same time.
It is a fact that the pistol that was allegedly taken from Lee Oswald in the theater was a S&W revolver.
Since ALL of the witnesses who saw Tippit's killer emptying the spent shells from is pistol swore that he removed those spent shells ONE AT A TIME.....he was not using a S&W revolver. .....AND HE WAS NOT LEE OSWALD.
-
It is a FACT that the man who shot JD Tippit was seen removing the spent shells ONE AT A TIME as he walked away from the scene.
It is also a FACT that the spent shells in a S&W revolver are all removed at the same at the same time.
It is a fact that the pistol that was allegedly taken from Lee Oswald in the theater was a S&W revolver.
Since ALL of the witnesses who saw Tippit's killer emptying the spent shells from is pistol swore that he removed those spent shells ONE AT A TIME.....he was not using a S&W revolver. .....AND HE WAS NOT LEE OSWALD.
It is a FACT that multiple witness place Oswald at the scene holding a gun.
It is a FACT that Oswald had the same two brands of ammo in his possession when arrested that were used to kill Tippit.
This is a slam dunk. There is zero doubt of Oswald's guilt in the commission of this crime.
-
It is a FACT that multiple witness place Oswald at the scene holding a gun.
It is a FACT that Oswald had the same two brands of ammo in his possession when arrested that were used to kill Tippit.
This is a slam dunk. There is zero doubt of Oswald's guilt in the commission of this crime.
You simply refuse to extract your head.......
-
“FACT”. LOL.
-
It is a FACT that the man who shot JD Tippit was seen removing the spent shells ONE AT A TIME as he walked away from the scene.
It is also a FACT that the spent shells in a S&W revolver are all removed at the same at the same time.
It is a fact that the pistol that was allegedly taken from Lee Oswald in the theater was a S&W revolver.
Since ALL of the witnesses who saw Tippit's killer emptying the spent shells from is pistol swore that he removed those spent shells ONE AT A TIME.....he was not using a S&W revolver. .....AND HE WAS NOT LEE OSWALD.
The fact is, the ejectors on S&W revolvers are completely under the user's control. You can eject fast and hard, or slight and slow as you so desire. Doing the latter will allow you to remove cartridge cases individually from the cylinder, a good idea if you don't know how many rounds you just fired and don't want to throw out the unfired cartridges along with the spent cases.
-
The fact is, the ejectors on S&W revolvers are completely under the user's control. You can eject fast and hard, or slight and slow as you so desire. Doing the latter will allow you to remove cartridge cases individually from the cylinder, a good idea if you don't know how many rounds you just fired and don't want to throw out the unfired cartridges along with the spent cases.
OK genius.... IF the man was using a S&W, WHY would he swing the cylinder out of the frame and the push the extractor rod and only remove a single cartridge?? Incidentally, ... The witness said that the fleeing gunman was holding the gun in his hand with the barrel pointing up and shaking it to facilitate the removal of the spent shells as he removed ONE SHELL AT A TIME.
-
The shooter fired at least 4 shots, so he’s got 2 left in the drum.
So is there a way to keep the thumb over the 2 live rounds when the drum is swung open , (so they don’t fall out ), while shaking out the 4 spent shells?
If so, then IDK why the shooter would take one shell out at a time , since he could theoretically dump all 4 spent shells in one quick shake while still holding the 2 live shells in chamber with his thumb.
-
The shooter fired at least 4 shots, so he’s got 2 left in the drum.
So is there a way to keep the thumb over the 2 live rounds when the drum is swung open , (so they don’t fall out ), while shaking out the 4 spent shells?
If so, then IDK why the shooter would take one shell out at a time , since he could theoretically dump all 4 spent shells in one quick shake while still holding the 2 live shells in chamber with his thumb.
The shooter fired at least 4 shots, so he’s got 2 left in the drum.
I've pointed out that the witnesses said that shooter was NOT using a S&W.......They described the unloading of the spent shells ...ONE SHELL AT A TIME....
IDK why the shooter would take one shell out at a time ,
Yes, that's a good observation.... IF ... IF I ask...If the man was using a S&W revolver why would he want to remove one shell at a time as the witnesses saw him do?
The answer is..... The man was NOT using a S&W. And he was not Lee Oswald.
-
OK genius.... IF the man was using a S&W, WHY would he swing the cylinder out of the frame and the push the extractor rod and only remove a single cartridge?? Incidentally, ... The witness said that the fleeing gunman was holding the gun in his hand with the barrel pointing up and shaking it to facilitate the removal of the spent shells as he removed ONE SHELL AT A TIME.
Did he just remove a single cartridge, or did he remove them individually rather than dumping out the whole lot at once?
Incidentally, ... The witness said that the fleeing gunman was holding the gun in his hand with the barrel pointing up and shaking it to facilitate the removal of the spent shells as he removed ONE SHELL AT A TIME.
Which witness was this, Walt, and exactly where did they say it?
-
Did he just remove a single cartridge, or did he remove them individually rather than dumping out the whole lot at once?
Which witness was this, Walt, and exactly where did they say it?
Which witness was this, Walt, and exactly where did they say it?
The witnesses who reported seeing the man pointing the barrel up and shaking the pistol, and discarding the shells were the Davis girls. Domingo Benavides described the man that he saw shoot Tippit as walking away and tossing a shell ( ONE SHELL)in the bush as he walked away. The spent shells that were recovered at he scene Were found scattered about, and not in a cluster as would be expected if they had been extracted from a S&W.
-
The fact is, the ejectors on S&W revolvers are completely under the user's control. You can eject fast and hard, or slight and slow as you so desire. Doing the latter will allow you to remove cartridge cases individually from the cylinder, a good idea if you don't know how many rounds you just fired and don't want to throw out the unfired cartridges along with the spent cases.
Duh!!....When using a S&W revolver all cartridges ( both spent and unfired) are ejected at once. If the shooter has fired four shells he simply dumps all shells into his hand, and then he can place the two live rounds back in the cylinder and replace the four spent rounds that he has discarded four with live cartridges.
-
Duh!!....When using a S&W revolver all cartridges ( both spent and unfired) are ejected at once. If the shooter has fired four shells he simply dumps all shells into his hand, and then he can place the two live rounds back in the cylinder and replace the four spent rounds that he has discarded four with live cartridges.
Try this:
While holding a revolver in one hand:
Dump a selection of unfired and fired cartridges into your other hand
Sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff using only the other hand (remembering that hand#1 is preoccupied with holding a pistol)
Reload the unfired cartridges into the cylinder of the pistol
Dump the fired, empty cases
Do all of this while on the move, and without letting go of the pistol.
-
Which witness was this, Walt, and exactly where did they say it?
The witnesses who reported seeing the man pointing the barrel up and shaking the pistol, and discarding the shells were the Davis girls. Domingo Benavides described the man that he saw shoot Tippit as walking away and tossing a shell ( ONE SHELL)in the bush as he walked away. The spent shells that were recovered at he scene Were found scattered about, and not in a cluster as would be expected if they had been extracted from a S&W.
So it's not one witness, as advertised, but a combination of the testimony of three different ones. Good to know.
Anyway, Benavides saw the gunman remove and throw two cases, not one. Then again, he remembered that he heard three shots, when there must have been at least four, so his counting may be off.
The shaking described by the Davis girls doesn't solve your problem. Their description implies two different possibilities to me:
First is that the Davises saw the guy doing what might be called the 'combat crane close.' This maneuver involves closing the cylinder by abruptly rotating the wrist of the hand holding the pistol. If you remember old-school cop and detective shows, you've seen some actor do it at least once. Sometimes, the cylinder doesn't engage the frame and bounces back, requiring a second or even a third shake to get the thing closed.
Second is where the rim of one or more cases slips past the ejector star and fall back into their chamber. If that happens, one easy way to get them out is to shake them out. In any case, if you are having to shake the cases out of a revolver, the ejector isn't doing the job and the cases aren't coming out normally. Oswald's pistol was originally chambered in .38 S&W, but the chamber was rebored to fire .38 Special. .38 S&W is slightly larger diameter than .38 special. The modification of the LHO pistol can cause .38SPL cases to permanently swell or even split during firing, which would definitely make it harder to unload normally. And it's a situation liable to cause someone to pick out cases onesey-twosey.
BTW, I don't see either of the Davis girls saying that the shooter was pointing the barrel upwards when he shook the gun.
-
So it's not one witness, as advertised, but a combination of the testimony of three different ones. Good to know.
Anyway, Benavides saw the gunman remove and throw two cases, not one. Then again, he remembered that he heard three shots, when there must have been at least four, so his counting may be off.
The shaking described by the Davis girls doesn't solve your problem. Their description implies two different possibilities to me:
First is that the Davises saw the guy doing what might be called the 'combat crane close.' This maneuver involves closing the cylinder by abruptly rotating the wrist of the hand holding the pistol. If you remember old-school cop and detective shows, you've seen some actor do it at least once. Sometimes, the cylinder doesn't engage the frame and bounces back, requiring a second or even a third shake to get the thing closed.
Second is where the rim of one or more cases slips past the ejector star and fall back into their chamber. If that happens, one easy way to get them out is to shake them out. In any case, if you are having to shake the cases out of a revolver, the ejector isn't doing the job and the cases aren't coming out normally. Oswald's pistol was originally chambered in .38 S&W, but the chamber was rebored to fire .38 Special. .38 S&W is slightly larger diameter than .38 special. The modification of the LHO pistol can cause .38SPL cases to permanently swell or even split during firing, which would definitely make it harder to unload normally. And it's a situation liable to cause someone to pick out cases onesey-twosey.
BTW, I don't see either of the Davis girls saying that the shooter was pointing the barrel upwards when he shook the gun.
You are the epitome LNer who will refuse to drink...... even after he's been lead to water......
-
You are the epitome LNer who will refuse to drink...... even after he's been lead to water......
You have to have the water to begin with, Walt.
-
You have to have the water to begin with, Walt.
Do you actually believe hat Tippit's killer was using an old worn out 38 caliber S&W with a 2 inch barrel and he could hit Tippit in the chest area? Think about it?? .
-
Do you actually believe hat Tippit's killer was using an old worn out 38 caliber S&W with a 2 inch barrel and he could hit Tippit in the chest area? Think about it?? .
Is there some reason to believe the gun carried by Oswald was not operational? Subjective characterizations like it was "worn out" doesn't mean it was not functional as you suggest. The shots were fired at point blank range. It's unreal that anyone would apply this kind of analysis to rebut the mountain of actual evidence and multiple eyewitnesses that link Oswald to this crime. Oswald was identified as the gunman who committed this crime in broad daylight in front of multiple witnesses while still carrying the literal smoking gun. He still had that gun in his possession upon arrest. He also had the same two brands of ammo that were used to kill Tippit. Absent a time machine, it is difficult to imagine how there could be more evidence than exists. It is a slam dunk of guilt.
Imagine the counternarrative where LHO is blundering by accident across the scene of multiple murders that day. And he looks just like the killer according to multiple witnesses. He is carrying a gun for some unknown reason to go to the movies. He is acting so suspiciously that a random person follows him and has the police called. He has the same two brands of ammo as Tippit's killer. Just so much bad luck.
-
Why dump the shells at all.
Why not get the F out of Dodge and then dump them.
I never quite understood that.
It doesn't have any bearing on who the shooter was, it just seems weird (to me, at least).
-
Why dump the shells at all.
Why not get the F out of Dodge and then dump them.
I never quite understood that.
It doesn't have any bearing on who the shooter was, it just seems weird (to me, at least).
I'm not sure that you are raising this to indicate any doubt of Oswald's guilt but many CTers go down these kinds of rabbit holes for that purpose. Would it be any weirder for Oswald to have done this than some other person? What is important is that Oswald is the person identified at the scene with the gun. He is arrested with the gun a short distance away and has the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit. One heck of a coincidence if he wasn't involved. What is "weird" to me is leaving his place of employment at midday without permission after a police officer has pointed a gun at him and having no apparent curiosity about what is going on. And then going out of his way to get his gun and sneak into the movies. Acting so suspiciously that he draws the attention of a random person. Now that is weird behavior unless Oswald was in flight from the assassination.
-
"Richard" exhibits weird behavior every day on this forum. Nobody bases a murder accusation on that.
PS: "gun carried by Oswald". LOL
-
Do you actually believe hat Tippit's killer was using an old worn out 38 caliber S&W with a 2 inch barrel and he could hit Tippit in the chest area? Think about it?? .
Tippit was shot from ~6 ft away. The shooter could have comfortably hit him rapidfire with a pop gun at that range.
-
Why dump the shells at all.
Why not get the F out of Dodge and then dump them.
I never quite understood that.
It doesn't have any bearing on who the shooter was, it just seems weird (to me, at least).
I imagine that the gunman would quickly come to the conclusion he needed to reload ASAP before anyone decided to jump him.
Or in case anyone else was nearby with a firearm of their own. Texas has something of a rep for being Texas, after all.
And why keep fired cartridges in your pocket? They don't help you escape, and are evidence that you fired the pistol that your carrying since (at least) you put your pants/jacket/shirt on.
-
I imagine that the gunman would quickly come to the conclusion he needed to reload ASAP before anyone decided to jump him.
Or in case anyone else was nearby with a firearm of their own. Texas has something of a rep for being Texas, after all.
And why keep fired cartridges in your pocket? They don't help you escape, and are evidence that you fired the pistol that your carrying since (at least) you put your pants/jacket/shirt on.
Texas has something of a rep for being Texas, after all.
Fair point.
-
Why dump the shells at all.
Why not get the F out of Dodge and then dump them.
I never quite understood that.
It doesn't have any bearing on who the shooter was, it just seems weird (to me, at least).
You've raised some very interesting points Mr O.
The guy acted as if he wanted to be seen.... And apparently he did resemble Lee Oswald ( that may be the reason he Sauntered away and casually remove the shells from his pistol ONE SHELL AT A TIME. It's possible that he was discarding spent shells that had been fired from Lee's ?? .38 S&W at some previous time.
Your observation is quite astute, Mr O'meara.
-
I imagine that the gunman would quickly come to the conclusion he needed to reload ASAP before anyone decided to jump him.
Or in case anyone else was nearby with a firearm of their own. Texas has something of a rep for being Texas, after all.
And why keep fired cartridges in your pocket? They don't help you escape, and are evidence that you fired the pistol that your carrying since (at least) you put your pants/jacket/shirt on.
It is kind of interesting that we don't have any evidence (I don't think?) of anyone brandishing a revolver/gun during all of this chaos. Not in Dealey Plaza - none of the people running up the knoll or to the overpass appeared to be carrying. And in the Tippit shooting Callaway picked up Tippit's revolver in an attempt to chase the gunman down. None of the people came out with a revolver, none of the men driving around had one. I would guess that would be different today.
As to the cartridges/shells: Whoever the shooter was (I would suggest it was Oswald; but you know how us lone nutter sheeple are) appeared more worried about someone going after him then "getting away." He just shot an officer in the middle of the street, with people all around. I don't think he's worried about hiding evidence; he's trying to get out of Dodge.
-
As to the cartridges/shells: Whoever the shooter was (I would suggest it was Oswald; but you know how us lone nutter sheeple are) appeared more worried about someone going after him then "getting away." He just shot an officer in the middle of the street, with people all around. I don't think he's worried about hiding evidence; he's trying to get out of Dodge.
That must be why he stopped to look at Markham, stopped to look and smile at the Davises, stopped to "fool with his gun", and then only trotted "not real fast" down Patton.
-
It is kind of interesting that we don't have any evidence (I don't think?) of anyone brandishing a revolver/gun during all of this chaos. Not in Dealey Plaza - none of the people running up the knoll or to the overpass appeared to be carrying. And in the Tippit shooting Callaway picked up Tippit's revolver in an attempt to chase the gunman down. None of the people came out with a revolver, none of the men driving around had one. I would guess that would be different today.
As to the cartridges/shells: Whoever the shooter was (I would suggest it was Oswald; but you know how us lone nutter sheeple are) appeared more worried about someone going after him then "getting away." He just shot an officer in the middle of the street, with people all around. I don't think he's worried about hiding evidence; he's trying to get out of Dodge.
In those days, IIRC it was generally illegal in Texas to carry a pistol on your person unless you had a specific permit to do so. Rifles and shotguns were different. I was thinking more along the lines of someone popping out of their house with a 12-guage rather than a pistol packin' mama being on the scene. The former case is easy enough to believe; during Charles Whitman's rampage a few years later in Austin, a number of armed citizens grabbed their rifles and returned fire. That was a more drawn-out affair, however.
-
Would not it have been quicker for the shooter to flip the drum/cylinder out, hold his thumb over the 2 unfired rounds, and shake out the 4 spent shells in his other hand all at once?
That seems to be what some witnesses describe as the shooter pointing the gun barrel up and shaking it.
So does the rebored size of the cylinder wells cause a problem of shells not sliding out even if shaking the gun with the barrel pointed up?
If so, then maybe it is plausible the shooter had to resort to having to pull out each shell one by one.
However, What is the reason for The carelessness , of the shooter, seemingly not worried about leaving fingerprints on that those shells he is removing one by one, and throwing them at the scene in LOS of witnesses?
It’s NOT because he was trying to be quick , that’s fairly evident by how long he lingered at the scene, (as Mr Iacolleti already pointed out.)
A few alternatives:
1. The shooter was the CIA/FBI informant Oswald in a state of confused mind, perhaps paranoid, and was not analyzing his situation rationally when confronted by Tippet.
2. The shooter was “the nut” Oswald and was in a state of mind in which he was euphoric and desired that his face should be seen and that he should be seen throwing shells at the scene.
3. The shooter was some person who resembled Oswald, and shot Tippet for no reason connected to Oswald or the JFK assassination.
4. The shooter was some person resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.
In none of the above alternatives can a de facto conclusion be drawn that the shooter must have also been the JFK assassin.
-
Would not it have been quicker for the shooter to flip the drum/cylinder out, hold his thumb over the 2 unfired rounds, and shake out the 4 spent shells in his other hand all at once?
That seems to be what some witnesses describe as the shooter pointing the gun barrel up and shaking it.
So does the rebored size of the cylinder wells cause a problem of shells not sliding out even if shaking the gun with the barrel pointed up?
If so, then maybe it is plausible the shooter had to resort to having to pull out each shell one by one.
However, What is the reason for The carelessness , of the shooter, seemingly not worried about leaving fingerprints on that those shells he is removing one by one, and throwing them at the scene in LOS of witnesses?
It’s NOT because he was trying to be quick , that’s fairly evident by how long he lingered at the scene, (as Mr Iacolleti already pointed out.)
A few alternatives:
1. The shooter was the CIA/FBI informant Oswald in a state of confused mind, perhaps paranoid, and was not analyzing his situation rationally when confronted by Tippet.
2. The shooter was “the nut” Oswald and was in a state of mind in which he was euphoric and desired that his face should be seen and that he should be seen throwing shells at the scene.
3. The shooter was some person who resembled Oswald, and shot Tippet for no reason connected to Oswald or the JFK assassination.
4. The shooter was some person resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.
In none of the above alternatives can a de facto conclusion be drawn that the shooter must have also been the JFK assassin.
4. The shooter was some person resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.
4. The shooter was a professional hit man, resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.
I don't know if the killer was part of the conspiracy..... His job was to kill Tippit and leave the spent shells scattered about.
Thanks for responding with some ideas.
-
4. The shooter was some person resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.
4. The shooter was a professional hit man, resembling Oswald who was part of a conspiracy to set up Oswald, thus throwing shells and lingering, and face seen, was meant to implicate Oswald.
I don't know if the killer was part of the conspiracy..... His job was to kill Tippit and leave the spent shells scattered about.
Thanks for responding with some ideas.
Wow. This bizarre fantasy is almost as good as the red rings.
-
Wow. This bizarre fantasy is almost as good as the red rings.
Bizarre fantasy.... The Warren Report.
-
In those days, IIRC it was generally illegal in Texas to carry a pistol on your person unless you had a specific permit to do so. Rifles and shotguns were different. I was thinking more along the lines of someone popping out of their house with a 12-guage rather than a pistol packin' mama being on the scene. The former case is easy enough to believe; during Charles Whitman's rampage a few years later in Austin, a number of armed citizens grabbed their rifles and returned fire. That was a more drawn-out affair, however.
"...rather than a pistol packin' mama being on the scene."
;D You do have a way with words Mr Todd
For argument's sake, let's say the shooter is Oswald, he's just gunned down and murdered a police officer in broad daylight so he can expect law enforcement to be descending on the area at any time. Or, Texas being Texas, some concerned citizen brandishing a 12-gauge to materialise out of nowhere. So he empty's the four used shells and reloads.
Do we know if the pistol attributed to Oswald was fully loaded when he was arrested?
-
"...rather than a pistol packin' mama being on the scene."
;D You do have a way with words Mr Todd
For argument's sake, let's say the shooter is Oswald, he's just gunned down and murdered a police officer in broad daylight so he can expect law enforcement to be descending on the area at any time. Or, Texas being Texas, some concerned citizen brandishing a 12-gauge to materialise out of nowhere. So he empty's the four used shells and reloads.
Do we know if the pistol attributed to Oswald was fully loaded when he was arrested?
Do we know if the pistol attributed to Oswald was fully loaded when he was arrested?
The police said that the S&W with the sawed off barrel that they took from Lee Oswald was fully loaded.....
But like every piece of evidence in this case ...... we don't know if it's the truth.
-
Do we know if the pistol attributed to Oswald was fully loaded when he was arrested?
The police said that the S&W with the sawed off barrel that they took from Lee Oswald was fully loaded.....
But like every piece of evidence in this case ...... we don't know if it's the truth.
If the revolver attributed to Oswald was found fully loaded at his arrest, it feeds into the narrative of him trying to reload after shooting Tippit.
If it had not been loaded, this would have been a problem for the same narrative (why empty the shells at the scene if you don't reload?).
LNers can easily argue that the officers who initially recovered the revolver would have no idea whether the shooter reloaded or not, if it was a plant it might have made more sense to have four spent shells still inside the revolver.
Perhaps.
When you say "sawed off" do you mean snub-nosed?
-
If the revolver attributed to Oswald was found fully loaded at his arrest, it feeds into the narrative of him trying to reload after shooting Tippit.
If it had not been loaded, this would have been a problem for the same narrative (why empty the shells at the scene if you don't reload?).
LNers can easily argue that the officers who initially recovered the revolver would have no idea whether the shooter reloaded or not, if it was a plant it might have made more sense to have four spent shells still inside the revolver.
Perhaps.
When you say "sawed off" do you mean snub-nosed?
Yes.... But it had not left the factory as a manufactured snub nose..... Someone had sawed the barrel off.
-
"...rather than a pistol packin' mama being on the scene."
;D You do have a way with words Mr Todd
For argument's sake, let's say the shooter is Oswald, he's just gunned down and murdered a police officer in broad daylight so he can expect law enforcement to be descending on the area at any time. Or, Texas being Texas, some concerned citizen brandishing a 12-gauge to materialise out of nowhere. So he empty's the four used shells and reloads.
Do we know if the pistol attributed to Oswald was fully loaded when he was arrested?
When he was arrested, Oswald had six rounds in the cylinder (CE592) and five more in his pocket (CE518).
BTW, all we can say about the number of shots is that at least 4 were fired. One or two rounds may have missed completely, and the shells never recovered.
-
19:55
Sgt. Gerald Hill admitted later that he only assumed that the shells were automatics because they were found at the scene; i.e. Hill was aware they were found at the scene and therefore assumed they were automatically ejected from the weapon as each round was fired. This is a normal assumption to make. Hill, at the time, was unaware that eyewitnesses watched the fleeing gunman manually removing the spent shell casings from the revolver. Also, two of the shells were found about seventy-five feet from the patrol car and the other two shells were found about one hundred and fifty feet from the patrol car. The shooter was standing about three or four feet from the patrol car when he fired the shots. If they were automatics, the shell casings would all have been found right next to the patrol car. They were not automatic shells.
-
22:50
Poe testified that he could not be certain that he marked the shells.
-
19:00
Capt. Westbrook is not on the film footage saying he had a wallet belonging to Lee Oswald. Ron Reiland's footage had no sound. All the footage shows is Westbrook holding the wallet.
-
17:45
The bullet that entered the right temple did not go "out the back" of the head, as claimed in this video. The bullet was recovered in the head during the autopsy. Also, it is claimed in the video above that the autopsy is lost, whatever that means. I assume the claim was meant to say that the autopsy report was lost, which is not true. Honestly, I appreciate the passion of this Mark Groubert, but he is as clueless as almost every other goofball out there who refuses to admit that Lee Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit.
-
15:40
T.F. Bowley did not live across the street as claimed in this video. Bowley drove upon the scene on his way to pick his wife up from work.
-
11:10
The assassination most certainly did not happen at 12:35, as claimed in the above video. It is common knowledge that the shooting in Dealey Plaza was at 12:30. This is JFK assassination 101.
-
19:00
Capt. Westbrook is not on the film footage saying he had a wallet belonging to Lee Oswald. Ron Reiland's footage had no sound. All the footage shows is Westbrook holding the wallet.
So, you acknowledge that what we see in the footage is indeed Capt. Westbrook holding a wallet?
-
So, you acknowledge that what we see in the footage is indeed Capt. Westbrook holding a wallet?
In the footage, Sgt. Bud Owens is holding the wallet. I should say that he then hands it to Westbrook.
-
In the footage, Sgt. Bud Owens is holding the wallet. I should say that he then hands it to Westbrook.
Not what I asked. Was it a wallet? Yes or no?
-
Not what I asked. Was it a wallet? Yes or no?
I've been back and forth on that over the years. I believe it was a wallet, though it could be some sort of note pad.
-
I've been back and forth on that over the years. I believe it was a wallet, though it could be some sort of note pad.
Fair enough. I'm pretty sure, in my mind, that it was indeed a wallet and it wasn't Tippit's.
-
Fair enough. I'm pretty sure, in my mind, that it was indeed a wallet and it wasn't Tippit's.
Agreed. Tippit's wallet went with him to Methodist Hospital.
-
Tippit was shot from ~6 ft away. The shooter could have comfortably hit him rapidfire with a pop gun at that range.
6 FEET ??? Please verify that measurement.
-
So it's not one witness, as advertised, but a combination of the testimony of three different ones. Good to know.
Anyway, Benavides saw the gunman remove and throw two cases, not one. Then again, he remembered that he heard three shots, when there must have been at least four, so his counting may be off.
The shaking described by the Davis girls doesn't solve your problem. Their description implies two different possibilities to me:
First is that the Davises saw the guy doing what might be called the 'combat crane close.' This maneuver involves closing the cylinder by abruptly rotating the wrist of the hand holding the pistol. If you remember old-school cop and detective shows, you've seen some actor do it at least once. Sometimes, the cylinder doesn't engage the frame and bounces back, requiring a second or even a third shake to get the thing closed.
Second is where the rim of one or more cases slips past the ejector star and fall back into their chamber. If that happens, one easy way to get them out is to shake them out. In any case, if you are having to shake the cases out of a revolver, the ejector isn't doing the job and the cases aren't coming out normally. Oswald's pistol was originally chambered in .38 S&W, but the chamber was rebored to fire .38 Special. .38 S&W is slightly larger diameter than .38 special. The modification of the LHO pistol can cause .38SPL cases to permanently swell or even split during firing, which would definitely make it harder to unload normally. And it's a situation liable to cause someone to pick out cases onesey-twosey.
BTW, I don't see either of the Davis girls saying that the shooter was pointing the barrel upwards when he shook the gun.
"The .38 S&W is slightly larger diameter than .38 special."
The .38 special cartridge is LONGER..... NOT larger in diameter than the old .38 cartridge. The projectile diameter for the old .38 was .359", ( the projectile for the .38 Special is .357") and the case length was 0.78". So the chamber in the cylinder had to be bored .375"deeper to accommodate the longer .38 special.
-
Why dump the shells at all.
Why not get the F out of Dodge and then dump them.
I never quite understood that.
It doesn't have any bearing on who the shooter was, it just seems weird (to me, at least).
Why dump the shells at all.
Why not get the F out of Dodge and then dump them.
Answer.... Leave empty shellsat the murder scene, that had been fired from (Lee's ?) pistol., to incriminate LHO.
-
Gerald Hill’s lame excuse notwithstanding, a veteran police officer could have easily distinguished an automatic shell and a revolver shell by looking at it.
-
Gerald Hill’s lame excuse notwithstanding, a veteran police officer could have easily distinguished an automatic shell and a revolver shell by looking at it.
But, not if Hill only was aware of the shells being found at the scene and had not yet looked at them when he made the report on the police radio.
-
Why would a veteran police officer report on something he hadn’t seen?
-
Gerald Hill’s lame excuse notwithstanding, a veteran police officer could have easily distinguished an automatic shell and a revolver shell by looking at it.
Very true.... But Hill was no Einstein ..... He may have seen the word "special" and assumed that meant "automatic."
-
Why would a veteran police officer report on something he hadn’t seen?
What is so difficult about this? He was aware that shells were found at the scene. That almost always means they were automatically ejected from the weapon as each round was fired. He reported accordingly.
What's the purpose of this? Are you trying to argue that the shells were automatics?
-
What it means is that Hill was either grossly incompetent, or Benavides showed him three automatic shells in a cigarette wrapper.
-
What it means is that Hill was either grossly incompetent, or Benavides showed him three automatic shells in a cigarette wrapper.
Well... Benavides turned the shells over to Poe, not Hill. So.... what now? Hill can't be incompetent? He admitted as much.
-
"The .38 S&W is slightly larger diameter than .38 special."
The .38 special cartridge is LONGER..... NOT larger in diameter than the old .38 cartridge. The projectile diameter for the old .38 was .359", ( the projectile for the .38 Special is .357") and the case length was 0.78". So the chamber in the cylinder had to be bored .375"deeper to accommodate the longer .38 special.
Wholly Geez, Walt! Go back and re-read what I wrote.
That is, re-read what I wrote and what you quoted.
That is, re-read what I wrote and what you quoted and put in italics
That is, re-read what I wrote and what you quoted and put in italics and then in boldface just to be sure.
That is, re-read the sentence "The .38 S&W is slightly larger diameter than .38 special."
Note that it says that .38 S&W is slightly larger in diameter than .38 special.
Note that I said nothing about which cartridge was longer, only the .38 S&W is larger in diameter than .38 special.
-
Gerald Hill’s lame excuse notwithstanding, a veteran police officer could have easily distinguished an automatic shell and a revolver shell by looking at it.
There are plenty of revolvers that fire "automatic" cartridges, and plenty of semiautos that fire "revolver" cartridges. The Smith and Wesson model 52 was a contemporary automatic pistol that was chambered in .38 special. They were surprisingly popular back in the day, especially among target shooters. Colt made a version of the 1911 Gold Cup that was chambered in .38 special. There were a number of others as well, IIRC.
-
Well... Benavides turned the shells over to Poe, not Hill. So.... what now? Hill can't be incompetent? He admitted as much.
Well, he had to come up with some lame excuse for the discrepancy. But he did say that Poe showed him the shells.
-
Well, he had to come up with some lame excuse for the discrepancy. But he did say that Poe showed him the shells.
Are you arguing in favor of the shells being automatics?
-
I am arguing that the shells in evidence are not consistent with what was reported at the scene, and the excuse given for this discrepancy is not credible. Just as the excuse given for the Poe’s missing initials is not credible.
-
I am arguing that the shells in evidence are not consistent with what was reported at the scene, and the excuse given for this discrepancy is not credible. Just as the excuse given for the Poe’s missing initials is not credible.
Then your arguments are lame because you aren't making any valid arguments at all.
What was reported at the scene does not prove that the shells in evidence aren't the shells found at the scene.
The argument that Poe did indeed mark the shells is not more credible than the argument that he didn't mark them.
I'll rephrase my question. Do you believe the shells found at the scene were automatic shells?
-
Agreed. Tippit's wallet went with him to Methodist Hospital.
Did Tippit have some type of citation book? It seems like police officers would. And it makes sense to be looking through it on the chance that Tippit might have been writing a citation to the person who ended up shooting him. Thus providing the name of that individual. What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene. Whether by Oswald himself or someone trying to link him to the crime. If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be? Why would they suppress that wallet is inexplicable in the CTer narrative. The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one. That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed. And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.
-
Did Tippit have some type of citation book? It seems like police officers would. And it makes sense to be looking through it on the chance that Tippit might have been writing a citation to the person who ended up shooting him. Thus providing the name of that individual. What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene. Whether by Oswald himself or someone trying to link him to the crime. If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be? Why would they suppress that wallet is inexplicable in the CTer narrative. The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one. That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed. And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.
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.
-
Then your arguments are lame because you aren't making any valid arguments at all.
Not nearly as lame as all of your excuses for conflicting and inconsistent evidence.
What was reported at the scene does not prove that the shells in evidence aren't the shells found at the scene.
Not necessary, because you can’t prove that they are.
The argument that Poe did indeed mark the shells is not more credible than the argument that he didn't mark them.
Poe said that he marked them until he was presented with shells he couldn’t find his initials on.
I'll rephrase my question. Do you believe the shells found at the scene were automatic shells?
I don’t know what shells were found at the scene. That’s the whole problem — it’s unknowable. Even if Gerald Hill was the idiot you need him to be, it’s still unknowable.
-
Richard, you're using way too much logic and common sense here.
No, “Richard” is just reiterating his usual “the conspirators I just made up in my head would never do something like that, therefore Oswald did it” argument.
-
Did Tippit have some type of citation book? It seems like police officers would. And it makes sense to be looking through it on the chance that Tippit might have been writing a citation to the person who ended up shooting him. Thus providing the name of that individual. What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene. Whether by Oswald himself or someone trying to link him to the crime. If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be? Why would they suppress that wallet is inexplicable in the CTer narrative. The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one. That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed. And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.
What makes no sense is that the DPD would suppress Oswald's wallet if it had been left at the crime scene.
What makes you think they suppressed that wallet?
If, as CTers argue, the DPD was involved in framing Oswald for the JFK and Tippit murders, what better evidence than the presence of his wallet at the crime scene could there be?
Indeed. I agree.
The only explanation that I have ever seen articulated is that because Oswald had his real wallet on him when arrested, the DPD had to suppress this fake one.
And there you have surpassed yourself by providing a very plausible answer, except it remains to be seem which of the two wallets was the one that disappeared.
That explanation is laughable, however, because whoever planted the fake wallet would surely have known that Oswald was likely to have his real wallet on him when arrested or killed. And, if the conspirators controlled the evidence, they would just suppress the real wallet and enter the fake wallet that frames Oswald into evidence instead of the reverse.
Wow... you are beginning to understand.
Now, let's apply some factual information to see where we get. Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car while en route to DPD HQ. The next day he was interviewed on television and he was asked what was in the wallet. Did he answer that there were two ID's in the wallet, one in Oswald's name and the other for Hidell? No, he didn't. He just said he found some card with Oswald's name on it and a driver's license and a credit card. In fact, Bentley, nor any of the three other officers in the car reported about the name Hidell being found in the wallet. Bentley never testified before the WC and that was likely for a reason.
Now, let's turn to the other wallet, found at the Tippit crime scene. FBI agent Bob Barrett confirmed it was in fact a wallet. He also confirmed that Captain Westbrook, at some point, asked him if he knew somebody called Oswald or Hidell. Westbrook found those names in the wallet.
So, what happened? Well, when Detective Guss Rose arrived at DPD HQ just after Oswald had been brought in. An unidentified officer gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald. Rose then proceeded to talk to Oswald.
The question now is; Did the unidentified officer give Rose the wallet Bentley took from Oswald (with no Hidell ID, a driver's license and a credit card) or the wallet Westbrook and Barrett saw at the Tippit murder scene (with the Oswald and Hidell ID in it)?
Do the math...
-
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.
Actually, we can rule out that it was a "citation book" because FBI agent Bob Barrett said that it was a wallet. Or is Barrett lying?
-
Actually, we can rule out that it was a "citation book" because FBI agent Bob Barrett said that it was a wallet. Or is Barrett lying?
There is nothing from Barrett that weekend, that month, the rest of 1963, during the investigation in 1964... or any time during the decade of the 60's or the 70's where Barrett ever mentions any wallet at all.
The same can be said for Westbrook and/or Owens.
-
There is nothing from Barrett that weekend, that month, the rest of 1963, during the investigation in 1964... or any time during the decade of the 60's or the 70's where Barrett ever mentions any wallet at all.
The same can be said for Westbrook and/or Owens.
So, Barrett was lying?
-
There is nothing from Barrett that weekend, that month, the rest of 1963, during the investigation in 1964... or any time during the decade of the 60's or the 70's where Barrett ever mentions any wallet at all.
The same can be said for Westbrook and/or Owens.
There's news footage of police officers inspecting a wallet at the Tippit murder scene.
Also, didn't James Hosty corroborate Barrett's claim in one of his books?
As for Barrett not speaking on the issue for decades, bear in mind that most of these bureaucrats involved with the investigations weren't willing to risk their careers by blowing the whistle on the problems with the evidence. Being a government whistleblower usually doesn't end well. To that extent, it makes sense why some of them waited until retirement to speak more openly about weird things they observed.
-
Now, let's apply some factual information to see where we get. Paul Bentley was the officer who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car while en route to DPD HQ. The next day he was interviewed on television and he was asked what was in the wallet. Did he answer that there were two ID's in the wallet, one in Oswald's name and the other for Hidell? No, he didn't. He just said he found some card with Oswald's name on it and a driver's license and a credit card. In fact, Bentley, nor any of the three other officers in the car reported about the name Hidell being found in the wallet. Bentley never testified before the WC and that was likely for a reason.
Now, let's turn to the other wallet, found at the Tippit crime scene. FBI agent Bob Barrett confirmed it was in fact a wallet. He also confirmed that Captain Westbrook, at some point, asked him if he knew somebody called Oswald or Hidell. Westbrook found those names in the wallet.
So, what happened? Well, when Detective Guss Rose arrived at DPD HQ just after Oswald had been brought in. An unidentified officer gave him a wallet and said it belonged to Oswald. Rose then proceeded to talk to Oswald.
The question now is; Did the unidentified officer give Rose the wallet Bentley took from Oswald (with no Hidell ID, a driver's license and a credit card) or the wallet Westbrook and Barrett saw at the Tippit murder scene (with the Oswald and Hidell ID in it)?
Captain Westbrook was johnny on the spot that day. he was present at all three crime scenes (TSBD, the Tippit scene, and the movie theater).
I suspect (but can't prove) that Westbrook was part of the conspiracy and cover-up.
-
There's news footage of police officers inspecting a wallet at the Tippit murder scene.
Also, didn't James Hosty corroborate Barrett's claim in one of his books?
As for Barrett not speaking on the issue for decades, bear in mind that most of these bureaucrats involved with the investigations weren't willing to risk their careers by blowing the whistle on the problems with the evidence. Being a government whistleblower usually doesn't end well. To that extent, it makes sense why some of them waited until retirement to speak more openly about weird things they observed.
Hosty??....The Man who destroyed evidence when he destroyed the Oswald letter?? His book is basically lies intended to prop up the official tale.
It good that many researchers are awakening to the fact that the Dallas Police and the FBI were accessories ....
-
Is this relevant? The shooting of Tippitt is entirely consistent with the LN theory as well as with the Patsy theory.
-
Is this relevant? The shooting of Tippitt is entirely consistent with the LN theory as well as with the Patsy theory.
Agreed.
-
Is this relevant? The shooting of Tippitt is entirely consistent with the LN theory as well as with the Patsy theory.
Yes, it's relevant. And no, it isn't consisent with both theories, simply because the two theories are not only different but also contradict eachother on key issues.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Somewhere out there is a diagram of the streets showing LHO's alleged walk from the rooming house to where he supposedly encountered JDT. The entire path strains credibility. What in the world was he doing way out there on Patton if his goal was to "run scared" to the Texas Theater?
It makes absolutely no sense. He just performed an astounding feat of shooting, gets into a cab, gives it up to another person, takes the bus, goes to his room to change clothes, then takes this roundabout walk to the theater because he doesn't want to be discovered? He went through all of this so-called meticulous planning to pull off the shooting, yet leaves himself no out for a grand and secretive escape? It sure doesn't sound like he was in any hurry.
LOL
-
If someone intended to frame Oswald for both the Kennedy murder and the Tippit murder, planting a wallet with both Oswald’s photo ID and an Alec Hidell ID would link Oswald to the Tippit shooting and the purchase of the Carcano rifle.
But maybe that plan had to be altered because the Press was made aware of the accounts that Oswald had his wallet on him when he was arrested at the movie theater?
It’s also curious how there was no mention of the Hidell ID in any Dallas PD accounts of the wallet from November 22. Did they intentionally not mention the Hidell ID? Or did the wallets get swapped at some point?
-
If someone intended to frame Oswald for both the Kennedy murder and the Tippit murder, planting a wallet with both Oswald’s photo ID and an Alec Hidell ID would link Oswald to the Tippit shooting and the purchase of the Carcano rifle.
But maybe that plan had to be altered because the Press was made aware of the accounts that Oswald had his wallet on him when he was arrested at the movie theater?
It’s also curious how there was no mention of the Hidell ID in any Dallas PD accounts of the wallet from November 22. Did they intentionally not mention the Hidell ID? Or did the wallets get swapped at some point?
I figure that if Oswald's wallet had been recovered on 10th with ID inside, then this information would have been broadcast over the radio, and we'd hear it on the DPD radio recordings.
-
I figure that if Oswald's wallet had been recovered on 10th with ID inside, then this information would have been broadcast over the radio, and we'd hear it on the DPD radio recordings.
Exactly. How ironic and even bizarre is it that CTers are desperate for Oswald's wallet to have been found at the crime scene? If the plan was to plant Oswald's wallet at the scene to frame him, obviously the authorities would have yelled it from the rooftops. THAT WOULD BE THE ENTIRE POINT OF PLANTING HIS WALLET. They would have immediately broadcast the name and description of any individual whose wallet was left at the scene. That didn't happen. It wasn't a wallet left at the scene. The weak explanation that they could not have anticipated that Oswald would have his real wallet on him when arrested is laughable. It would not take Nostradamus to predict that Oswald would have his own wallet. That wouldn't blow the plan. It would have easly have been anticipated and accounted for. And if the authorities are going to suppress one of the wallets, then it would be the one found on Oswald at his arrest because finding his wallet at the Tippit crime scene would have high probative value linking him to that crime. What CTers are suggesting makes no narrative sense and even cuts against their own arguments. Like many things "it is just so" because there is no way to conclusively prove what the item is after all these years.
-
I figure that if Oswald's wallet had been recovered on 10th with ID inside, then this information would have been broadcast over the radio, and we'd hear it on the DPD radio recordings.
Exactly. How ironic and even bizarre is it that CTers are desperate for Oswald's wallet to have been found at the crime scene? If the plan was to plant Oswald's wallet at the scene to frame him, obviously the authorities would have yelled it from the rooftops. THAT WOULD BE THE ENTIRE POINT OF PLANTING HIS WALLET. They would have immediately broadcast the name and description of any individual whose wallet was left at the scene. That didn't happen. It wasn't a wallet left at the scene. The weak explanation that they could not have anticipated that Oswald would have his real wallet on him when arrested is laughable. It would not take Nostradamus to predict that Oswald would have his own wallet. That wouldn't blow the plan. It would have easly have been anticipated and accounted for. And if the authorities are going to suppress one of the wallets, then it would be the one found on Oswald at his arrest because finding his wallet at the Tippit crime scene would have high probative value linking him to that crime. What CTers are suggesting makes no narrative sense and even cuts against their own arguments. Like many things "it is just so" because there is no way to conclusively prove what the item is after all these years.
Did you two clowns go to the same "dumb and dumber" school?
If the plan was to plant Oswald's wallet at the scene to frame him, obviously the authorities would have yelled it from the rooftops.
And they did. They just couldn't say it was found at the crime scene because it was already known that Oswald had his wallet with him when he was arrested.
They would have immediately broadcast the name and description of any individual whose wallet was left at the scene. That didn't happen.
That didn't happen because (1) police never give names of potential suspects on the radio and (2) it's not up to a cop to determine that the wallet's owner had anything to do with the crime. He could just as easily have been a bystander who simply lost his wallet.
It wasn't a wallet left at the scene.
A bold false claim from somebody who wasn't there and is contradicted by FBI agent Barrett who actually was there.
The weak explanation that they could not have anticipated that Oswald would have his real wallet on him when arrested is laughable. It would not take Nostradamus to predict that Oswald would have his own wallet. That wouldn't blow the plan.
No it wouldn't, fool. The wallet Bentley took from Oswald contained only an Oswald ID (there is not one report about a Hidell ID being in there), a driver's license and a credit card.
The wallet that Detective Gus Rose was given by an unidentified officer contained a Hidell ID. How can this be? Simple; they switched the wallet taken from Oswald with the one found at the Tippit scene.
It would have easly have been anticipated and accounted for. And if the authorities are going to suppress one of the wallets, then it would be the one found on Oswald at his arrest because finding his wallet at the Tippit crime scene would have high probative value linking him to that crime.
Indeed. Except they could hardly say the wallet was found at the Tippit scene, when Paul Bentley is telling everybody on television that he took the wallet from Oswald in the car, after his arrest. So, they did the next best thing; switch the wallets and pretend the Tippit scene wallet was taken from Oswald in the car.
What CTers are suggesting makes no narrative sense and even cuts against their own arguments.
Actually, it's your own BS that doesn't make sense.
Like many things "it is just so" because there is no way to conclusively prove what the item is after all these years.
FBI agent Bob Barrett saying it was wallet that Westbrook was holding is not conclusive enough for you? Or are you another one of those clowns who, for the purpose of saving their own flawed narrative, simply claim that Barrett was lying?
-
Did you two clowns go to the same "dumb and dumber" school?
If the plan was to plant Oswald's wallet at the scene to frame him, obviously the authorities would have yelled it from the rooftops.
And they did. They just couldn't say it was found at the crime scene because it was already known that Oswald had his wallet with him when he was arrested.
They would have immediately broadcast the name and description of any individual whose wallet was left at the scene. That didn't happen.
That didn't happen because (1) police never give names of potential suspects on the radio and (2) it's not up to a cop to determine that the wallet's owner had anything to do with the crime. He could just as easily have been a bystander who simply lost his wallet.
It wasn't a wallet left at the scene.
A bold false claim from somebody who wasn't there and is contradicted by FBI agent Barrett who actually was there.
The weak explanation that they could not have anticipated that Oswald would have his real wallet on him when arrested is laughable. It would not take Nostradamus to predict that Oswald would have his own wallet. That wouldn't blow the plan.
No it wouldn't, fool. The wallet Bentley took from Oswald contained only an Oswald ID (there is not one report about a Hidell ID being in there), a driver's license and a credit card.
The wallet that Detective Gus Rose was given by an unidentified officer contained a Hidell ID. How can this be? Simple; they switched the wallet taken from Oswald with the one found at the Tippit scene.
It would have easly have been anticipated and accounted for. And if the authorities are going to suppress one of the wallets, then it would be the one found on Oswald at his arrest because finding his wallet at the Tippit crime scene would have high probative value linking him to that crime.
Indeed. Except they could hardly say the wallet was found at the Tippit scene, when Paul Bentley is telling everybody on television that he took the wallet from Oswald in the car, after his arrest. So, they did the next best thing; switch the wallets and pretend the Tippit scene wallet was taken from Oswald in the car.
What CTers are suggesting makes no narrative sense and even cuts against their own arguments.
Actually, it's your own BS that doesn't make sense.
Like many things "it is just so" because there is no way to conclusively prove what the item is after all these years.
FBI agent Bob Barrett saying it was wallet that Westbrook was holding is not conclusive enough for you? Or are you another one of those clowns who, for the purpose of saving their own flawed narrative, simply claim that Barrett was lying?
So hostile. It is unfortunate that posters are allowed to engage in this type of constant tirade and insults. And, of course, this rant is full of false premises and "assumptions." In which we learn that the police will not broadcast the name of a murder suspect over their police radio or even his description for other officers! LOL. And it's not up to the cops to determine if the wallet's owner had anything to do with the crime! Wow. I'm left speechless by that one. They certainly broadcast a description of the JFK assassin over the radio but in Martin's fantasy world that doesn't happen. And again, the discovery of a second wallet on Oswald would fully have been anticipated by anyone planting a wallet at the Tippit scene. It wouldn't have blown the deal. And they certainly would not have stood out in the open looking at it and being filmed if they intended to suppress that wallet.
-
So hostile. It is unfortunate that posters are allowed to engage in this type of constant tirade and insults. And, of course, this rant is full of false premises and "assumptions." In which we learn that the police will not broadcast the name of a murder suspect over their police radio or even his description for other officers! LOL. And it's not up to the cops to determine if the wallet's owner had anything to do with the crime! Wow. I'm left speechless by that one. They certainly broadcast a description of the JFK assassin over the radio but in Martin's fantasy world that doesn't happen. And again, the discovery of a second wallet on Oswald would fully have been anticipated by anyone planting a wallet at the Tippit scene. It wouldn't have blown the deal. And they certainly would not have stood out in the open looking at it and being filmed if they intended to suppress that wallet.
It only takes one or two people to manipulate evidence. Not everyone on the Dallas PD had to know or be aware of what was going on. The person on the Dallas PD who I think potentially was a conspirator or part of the coverup was Captain Westbrook. I can't prove it but his involvement in all three crime scenes that day put him in a position to manipulate the evidence and the investigations as needed.
There's enough corroboration to conclude that the Dallas police found a wallet at the Tippit scene. The contents of the wallet and whether it was a "second Oswald wallet" remain up for historical debate. There's good reason to believe Barrett told the truth as he remembers it but his memory could be inaccurate.
As I noted previously, the lack of references by the Dallas PD to the Hidell ID on November 22 looks suspicious as well but we can't rule out that they intentionally avoided talking about it before they knew more.
So, the two wallet thing is not easily dismissed. It remains one of the many unsolved mysteries of the Kennedy and Tippit murders...
-
It only takes one or two people to manipulate evidence. Not everyone on the Dallas PD had to know or be aware of what was going on. The person on the Dallas PD who I think potentially was a conspirator or part of the coverup was Captain Westbrook. I can't prove it but his involvement in all three crime scenes that day put him in a position to manipulate the evidence and the investigations as needed.
There's enough corroboration to conclude that the Dallas police found a wallet at the Tippit scene. The contents of the wallet and whether it was a "second Oswald wallet" remain up for historical debate. There's good reason to believe Barrett told the truth as he remembers it but his memory could be inaccurate.
As I noted previously, the lack of references by the Dallas PD to the Hidell ID on November 22 looks suspicious as well but we can't rule out that they intentionally avoided talking about it before they knew more.
So, the two wallet thing is not easily dismissed. It remains one of the many unsolved mysteries of the Kennedy and Tippit murders...
If the police had found a wallet at the murder scene of a police officer knowing that the murderer was still on the loose in the vicinity, don't you think someone would have radioed that person's name and/or description to the police dispatcher? Just as they did after the JFK assassination based on a witness description of the shooter. It would be logical to assume that a wallet left at that scene was related to the crime and the person whose ID was found in the wallet would likely be involved. Certainly, enough of a circumstance for the police to pursue that clue. And that would be the entire motivation of anyone who planted the wallet. We know that didn't happen, however. I doubt we can ever proof exactly what it is with certainty. But the circumstances lend themselves toward this being an item belonging to Tippit.
-
So hostile. It is unfortunate that posters are allowed to engage in this type of constant tirade and insults. And, of course, this rant is full of false premises and "assumptions." In which we learn that the police will not broadcast the name of a murder suspect over their police radio or even his description for other officers! LOL. And it's not up to the cops to determine if the wallet's owner had anything to do with the crime! Wow. I'm left speechless by that one. They certainly broadcast a description of the JFK assassin over the radio but in Martin's fantasy world that doesn't happen. And again, the discovery of a second wallet on Oswald would fully have been anticipated by anyone planting a wallet at the Tippit scene. It wouldn't have blown the deal. And they certainly would not have stood out in the open looking at it and being filmed if they intended to suppress that wallet.
In which we learn that the police will not broadcast the name of a murder suspect over their police radio or even his description for other officers! LOL.
Who said anything about transmitting a description? Your idiotic claim is that the police would have broadcast the name of a murder suspect. They don't broadcast names of suspects, but why don't you prove me wrong and show me where in the DPD transcripts a name of a suspect or even a witness is broadcast.
And it's not up to the cops to determine if the wallet's owner had anything to do with the crime! Wow. I'm left speechless by that one.
It would have been much better for you to have remained speechless, instead of displaying your massive level of ignorance. How in the world would they even know that the wallet they found belonged to the suspect, when it could just as easily be lost by a bystander? And what if they broadcast the name of a murder suspect and the media or (even worse) a bounty hunter gets hold of it with all sorts of possible consequences? And what if it later turns out the person they named had nothing to do with the crime after all?
They certainly broadcast a description of the JFK assassin over the radio but in Martin's fantasy world that doesn't happen.
That's just another one of your bold lies. I never said anything of the kind nor did I ever deny that descriptions are being broadcast. You do know the difference between a description and a name, do you?
And again, the discovery of a second wallet on Oswald would fully have been anticipated by anyone planting a wallet at the Tippit scene. It wouldn't have blown the deal.
Repeating the same BS again doesn't make it true. It's just another one of those wacky "they would have done this or that" arguments that go nowhere. You have already been told how they could have solved (and probably did) the two wallets scenario, but you seem to lack the capacity to understand what is written.
And they certainly would not have stood out in the open looking at it and being filmed if they intended to suppress that wallet.
Again, what makes you think that was the wallet they suppressed?
-
If the police had found a wallet at the murder scene of a police officer knowing that the murderer was still on the loose in the vicinity, don't you think someone would have radioed that person's name and/or description to the police dispatcher? Just as they did after the JFK assassination based on a witness description of the shooter. It would be logical to assume that a wallet left at that scene was related to the crime and the person whose ID was found in the wallet would likely be involved. Certainly, enough of a circumstance for the police to pursue that clue. And that would be the entire motivation of anyone who planted the wallet. We know that didn't happen, however. I doubt we can ever proof exactly what it is with certainty. But the circumstances lend themselves toward this being an item belonging to Tippit.
Pure speculation and more of the same "they would have done so and so" BS.
And that would be the entire motivation of anyone who planted the wallet. We know that didn't happen, however.
Really? And how do "we" know that?
And why do you keep ignoring the fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was there and saw the damned thing, confirmed that it was a wallet?
But the circumstances lend themselves toward this being an item belonging to Tippit.
Hilarious. For years LNs have been claiming that the wallet seen in the video belonged to Tippit. But then Marie Tippit confirmed that her husband had his wallet with him when he was delivered to the hospital. Unable to explain why Bob Barrett would lie about seeing Westbrook holding a wallet, we are now back to "it probably belonged to Tippit". It's beyond pathetic!
-
If the police had found a wallet at the murder scene of a police officer knowing that the murderer was still on the loose in the vicinity, don't you think someone would have radioed that person's name and/or description to the police dispatcher?
Without doing an investigation, how would they have known the wallet belonged to Tippit's killer? For all they knew at the time, the wallet could've belonged to an innocent bystander who ran away and dropped his wallet. I don't think the fact that they didn't do what you think they should've done proves anything. The Dallas PD didn't do lots of things that we assume SHOULD happen during crime scene investigations. The sniper's nest in TSBD almost certainly was staged and didn't look as it did in the photos when the police first arrived. The police certainly shouldn't tamper with potential evidence or stage evidence for photos but we know those sorts of things happened at the Kennedy crime scene.
If the wallet wasn't Oswald's who do you think it belonged to? It remains an unsolved mystery whether it belonged to Oswald or not.
-
Did you two clowns go to the same "dumb and dumber" school?
Did you read the rules regarding posting etiquette in this forum? Pretty sure that your lead-off broke a couple.
They would have immediately broadcast the name and description of any individual whose wallet was left at the scene. That didn't happen.
That didn't happen because (1) police never give names of potential suspects on the radio and (2) it's not up to a cop to determine that the wallet's owner had anything to do with the crime. He could just as easily have been a bystander who simply lost his wallet.
police never give names of potential suspects on the radio
This is from the Shearer transcript of the channel one recording:
DIS: 72.
72: Go ahead.
DIS: No wanted on a 1950 Chevrolet two-door, 1104 Vista Drive, Mesquite.
72: Check three persons for me: James Pride, colored male, 21; Charles Pride, colored male, 23; then a Carroll B. Pride (P-R-I-D-E), a colored male, 29.
DIS: Not registered to any of those.
72: Not
He could just as easily have been a bystander who simply lost his wallet.
Then wouldn't the obvious course of action be to ask the witnesses and gawkers assembled at the scene if they lost a wallet? Ask if anyone was or knew a Lee Oswald? Ask if anyone was or knew A. Hidell?
-
Without doing an investigation, how would they have known the wallet belonged to Tippit's killer? For all they knew at the time, the wallet could've belonged to an innocent bystander who ran away and dropped his wallet. I don't think the fact that they didn't do what you think they should've done proves anything. The Dallas PD didn't do lots of things that we assume SHOULD happen during crime scene investigations. The sniper's nest in TSBD almost certainly was staged and didn't look as it did in the photos when the police first arrived. The police certainly shouldn't tamper with potential evidence or stage evidence for photos but we know those sorts of things happened at the Kennedy crime scene.
If the wallet wasn't Oswald's who do you think it belonged to? It remains an unsolved mystery whether it belonged to Oswald or not.
What if the wallet belonged to someone they knew was at the scene, like Ted Callaway? He certainly would have attracted police interest, as he'd been riding around the 'hood with Scoggins, bearing the dead officer's pistol.
-
Did you read the rules regarding posting etiquette in this forum? Pretty sure that your lead-off broke a couple.
police never give names of potential suspects on the radio
This is from the Shearer transcript of the channel one recording:
DIS: 72.
72: Go ahead.
DIS: No wanted on a 1950 Chevrolet two-door, 1104 Vista Drive, Mesquite.
72: Check three persons for me: James Pride, colored male, 21; Charles Pride, colored male, 23; then a Carroll B. Pride (P-R-I-D-E), a colored male, 29.
DIS: Not registered to any of those.
72: Not
He could just as easily have been a bystander who simply lost his wallet.
Then wouldn't the obvious course of action be to ask the witnesses and gawkers assembled at the scene if they lost a wallet? Ask if anyone was or knew a Lee Oswald? Ask if anyone was or knew A. Hidell?
If you believe Barrett, he was asked at the Tippit murder scene if he knew an Oswald or Hidell:
"The first officer on the Tippit murder scene was Dallas Police Sergeant Kenneth H. Croy, who arrived as the ambulance was picking up Tippit’s body. Croy told an interviewer that an unknown man handed him Oswald’s wallet right after his arrival. The witnesses who preceded Croy at the crime scene were adamant that no one dropped a wallet anywhere in the vicinity.
The wallet wound up in the hands of Captain Pinky Westbrook. FBI agent Bob Barrett recalled that Westbrook turned to him at the scene and asked, ‘You ever heard of a Lee Harvey Oswald?’ I said, ‘No, I never have.’ He said ‘How about an Alek Hidell?’ I said, ‘No. I never have heard of him either,'” Barrett explained."
https://jfkfacts.org/oswalds-wallet-planted-at-the-tippit-crime-scene/
-
Did you read the rules regarding posting etiquette in this forum? Pretty sure that your lead-off broke a couple.
police never give names of potential suspects on the radio
This is from the Shearer transcript of the channel one recording:
DIS: 72.
72: Go ahead.
DIS: No wanted on a 1950 Chevrolet two-door, 1104 Vista Drive, Mesquite.
72: Check three persons for me: James Pride, colored male, 21; Charles Pride, colored male, 23; then a Carroll B. Pride (P-R-I-D-E), a colored male, 29.
DIS: Not registered to any of those.
72: Not
He could just as easily have been a bystander who simply lost his wallet.
Then wouldn't the obvious course of action be to ask the witnesses and gawkers assembled at the scene if they lost a wallet? Ask if anyone was or knew a Lee Oswald? Ask if anyone was or knew A. Hidell?
police never give names of potential suspects on the radio
This is from the Shearer transcript of the channel one recording:
DIS: 72.
72: Go ahead.
DIS: No wanted on a 1950 Chevrolet two-door, 1104 Vista Drive, Mesquite.
72: Check three persons for me: James Pride, colored male, 21; Charles Pride, colored male, 23; then a Carroll B. Pride (P-R-I-D-E), a colored male, 29.
DIS: Not registered to any of those.
72: Not
Which of those three was a murder suspect / witness or a suspect / witness in any other crime?
He could just as easily have been a bystander who simply lost his wallet.
Then wouldn't the obvious course of action be to ask the witnesses and gawkers assembled at the scene if they lost a wallet? Ask if anyone was or knew a Lee Oswald? Ask if anyone was or knew A. Hidell?
Sure, that's exactly what FBI agent Bob Barrett said happened. Westbrook asked him if he knew Oswald or Hidell!
He possibly asked other people as well, but that's not recorded anywhere, so we'll never know for sure.
I would argue that it is possible Westbrook did not call in the finding of the wallet exactly because he wasn't sure if it belonged to Tippit's killer or not. What he did call in was the white jacket that an unidentified cop found under a car, because he did have reason to assume it did belong to the killer.
One thing is for sure. Westbrook is essential in two pieces of crucial evidence and both pieces of evidence (the wallet and the jacket) are obviously tainted.
-
What if the wallet belonged to someone they knew was at the scene, like Ted Callaway? He certainly would have attracted police interest, as he'd been riding around the 'hood with Scoggins, bearing the dead officer's pistol.
If a photo ID of Oswald or Hidell was in the wallet, as it seems it was, just how big, do you think, are the odds they would consider Callaway as the potential owner?
-
Question is if these eyewitnesses would have pointed out Oswald in a line up if there were 7-8 other men of similar appearance, w/ same T-shirt and ALL were made up with a simulated bruised eye and a cut over the eye.
And all were equally complaining about the line up or whenever Oswald acted out, one or more of them would act out also.
-
Barrett was probably asked by Westbrook about the Oswald/Hidell names once they were back at headquarters.
-
Barrett was probably asked by Westbrook about the Oswald/Hidell names once they were back at headquarters.
Probably?
What is the basis for this assumption?
-
If you believe Barrett, he was asked at the Tippit murder scene if he knew an Oswald or Hidell:
"The first officer on the Tippit murder scene was Dallas Police Sergeant Kenneth H. Croy, who arrived as the ambulance was picking up Tippit’s body. Croy told an interviewer that an unknown man handed him Oswald’s wallet right after his arrival. The witnesses who preceded Croy at the crime scene were adamant that no one dropped a wallet anywhere in the vicinity.
The wallet wound up in the hands of Captain Pinky Westbrook. FBI agent Bob Barrett recalled that Westbrook turned to him at the scene and asked, ‘You ever heard of a Lee Harvey Oswald?’ I said, ‘No, I never have.’ He said ‘How about an Alek Hidell?’ I said, ‘No. I never have heard of him either,'” Barrett explained."
https://jfkfacts.org/oswalds-wallet-planted-at-the-tippit-crime-scene/
Barrett is the only source that Westbrook --or anyone else-- said anything about Oswald or Hidell at the crime scene before Oswald was arrested. And Barrett didn't start saying this until decades later.
Morley uses the WFAA/Rookstool story that they later quietly backed away from. That happened because a number of researchers pointed out the differences between the wallet seen in the film and the Oswald wallet in the National Archives, which precluded one from being the other. Rookstool says he has a photo onto which Croy wrote that her was give Oswald's wallet. But I can't say I've ever seen a copy of this version of the photo, nor has Rookstool, Croy, or anyone else said how Croy would have known the wallet was Oswald's or anyone else's.
About a dozen years ago, I went round and round with John Canal over the location of the BOH wound over at a.a.jfk. At one point, Canal proudly posted that he'd met with John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, at Stringer's house to present the Canal theory of the BOH wound. Part of Mr. Canal's fairly-involved theory was that the BOH photos were taken at the very end of the autopsy. Canal proudly informed everyone that Stringer had confirmed that the BOH photos were indeed taken at the very end of the autopsy.
I promptly reminded to Canal that, a dozen years before, Stringer had told the ARRB that the BOH photos were taken at the beginning of the autopsy, and that I doubted that Stringer's memory had improved with age.
I suspect that the Canal presented his case with enough gusto and enthusiasm that it started to override Stringer's increasingly dim memories of an even that occurred decades before. That can happen to Croy or other witnesses, too.
-
If a photo ID of Oswald or Hidell was in the wallet, as it seems it was, just how big, do you think, are the odds they would consider Callaway as the potential owner?
Who said that the wallet had a photo ID of Oswald or Hidell or anyone else?
-
Barrett is the only source that Westbrook --or anyone else-- said anything about Oswald or Hidell at the crime scene before Oswald was arrested. And Barrett didn't start saying this until decades later.
Morley uses the WFAA/Rookstool story that they later quietly backed away from. That happened because a number of researchers pointed out the differences between the wallet seen in the film and the Oswald wallet in the National Archives, which precluded one from being the other. Rookstool says he has a photo onto which Croy wrote that her was give Oswald's wallet. But I can't say I've ever seen a copy of this version of the photo, nor has Rookstool, Croy, or anyone else said how Croy would have known the wallet was Oswald's or anyone else's.
About a dozen years ago, I went round and round with John Canal over the location of the BOH wound over at a.a.jfk. At one point, Canal proudly posted that he'd met with John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, at Stringer's house to present the Canal theory of the BOH wound. Part of Mr. Canal's fairly-involved theory was that the BOH photos were taken at the very end of the autopsy. Canal proudly informed everyone that Stringer had confirmed that the BOH photos were indeed taken at the very end of the autopsy.
I promptly reminded to Canal that, a dozen years before, Stringer had told the ARRB that the BOH photos were taken at the beginning of the autopsy, and that I doubted that Stringer's memory had improved with age.
I suspect that the Canal presented his case with enough gusto and enthusiasm that it started to override Stringer's increasingly dim memories of an even that occurred decades before. That can happen to Croy or other witnesses, too.
Barrett is the only source
That's one more than the LNs have to support all their desperate speculation about it not being an Oswald wallet.
And Barrett didn't start saying this until decades later.
So what's your point? I you have one, that is....
-
Who said that the wallet had a photo ID of Oswald or Hidell or anyone else?
First of all, I started the sentence with the word "If". Did you miss that?
Secondly, let me put it like this; The fake Hidell ID has Oswald's photo on it. That's a fact. Bentley, who took the wallet from Oswald in the car, after his arrest, said nothing about an Hidell ID. No DPD report filed by any of the officers in the car with Oswald mentions the name Hidell, despite the fact that it is crucial evidence as it would link Oswald to the name on the order forms for the rifle and revolver. All this, and the interview Bentley gave on TV about the content of the wallet, justifies the conclusion that the Hidell ID was not in the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald.
Gus Rose was given a wallet, by an unidentified officer, who told him it was Oswald's, just like what happened with the jacket (Go figure!). And low and behold in that wallet there was this fake Hidell ID with Oswald's photo. IIRC Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person.
So, how did this unidentified officer manage to give a wallet with an Hidell ID to Gus Rose, who was the first to talk to Oswald after his arrival at the DPD HQ?
The only logical explanation, IMO, for that ID being in the wallet is that Rose was given the wallet which Barrett said Westbrook was looking at when he asked him about knowing Oswald or Hidell.
Or can you come up with another explanation?
-
police never give names of potential suspects on the radio
This is from the Shearer transcript of the channel one recording:
DIS: 72.
72: Go ahead.
DIS: No wanted on a 1950 Chevrolet two-door, 1104 Vista Drive, Mesquite.
72: Check three persons for me: James Pride, colored male, 21; Charles Pride, colored male, 23; then a Carroll B. Pride (P-R-I-D-E), a colored male, 29.
DIS: Not registered to any of those.
72: Not
Which of those three was a murder suspect / witness or a suspect / witness in any other crime?
They certainly seem to be involved in something. There is a car that has attracted police attention for some reason, and the officer at the scene suspects that they might be involved with it, which is why he calls in their names for further information. Why wouldn't Westbrook do the same if he found identification in the mystery wallet?
And where is it written that the police will never broadcast the name of a suspect? The cops will even have the TV news broadcast names and photos of suspects to the public for certain crimes.
He could just as easily have been a bystander who simply lost his wallet.
Then wouldn't the obvious course of action be to ask the witnesses and gawkers assembled at the scene if they lost a wallet? Ask if anyone was or knew a Lee Oswald? Ask if anyone was or knew A. Hidell?
Sure, that's exactly what FBI agent Bob Barrett said happened. Westbrook asked him if he knew Oswald or Hidell!
But that's not really what I asked. I asked about the "witnesses and gawkers" (note the plural). Barrett belonged to neither of these groups, and was only one person. So you want to try again, and not dodge this time?
He possibly asked other people as well, but that's not recorded anywhere, so we'll never know for sure.
And, out of all of those he would have asked, not one would have remembered or said anything about a police captain walking around the crime scene asking about Oswald/Hidell? That would be a hell of a thing for so many people to forget.
I would argue that it is possible Westbrook did not call in the finding of the wallet exactly because he wasn't sure if it belonged to Tippit's killer or not. What he did call in was the white jacket that an unidentified cop found under a car, because he did have reason to assume it did belong to the killer.
If it was found unclaimed at the crime scene, did not belong to the victim, and contained ID, I would figure that the first thing the officers on scene would do would be to call in to HQ for a records check on any identity found in the wallet. If nothing else, it would allow the DPD to quickly rule out the owner as a suspect. And it would quickly spread word of a valuable lead to a lot people who could use it most at a critical time.
One thing is for sure. Westbrook is essential in two pieces of crucial evidence and both pieces of evidence (the wallet and the jacket) are obviously tainted.
The Robert Harris Rule: when someone's arguments are centered on the word "obvious" it's generally because there are no other arguments to center around
-
Barrett is the only source
That's one more than the LNs have to support all their desperate speculation about it not being an Oswald wallet.
And Jack Tatum is one more source that Oswald delivered a coup-de-grace shot than the CTs have that Oswald didn't. So, by your own logick, you should automatically believe Tatum just as you choose to believe Barrett
And Barrett didn't start saying this until decades later.
So what's your point? I you have one, that is....
In his autobiography, John Connally wrote that most of his memories of November 22, 1963 really weren't his own memories, but things he'd gleaned from others or from what he'd seen or read in the years after the event. Over time, Connally's memories melded with these other sources into their own composite narrative. That's why he wrote about secret service agents immediately jumping out of the Queen Mary and heading straight for the TSBD.
Audrey Bell told the ARRB (and others) about her efforts in TR1 that day. After the assassination, JC Price had every Parkland staffer, medical or not, who was involved in the treatment of either Kennedy or Connally write a report about their activities that day. But there is no report from Audrey Bell in the resulting collection. The WC staff asked the various doctors and nurses who worked in TR1 that day to list the other staffers they remembered working with them. Bell's name is never mentioned. Almost all of the physicians in that room were surgeons, surgical residents, or interns on their surgery rotation. Bell, who was one of the supervisor nurses running the OR suite was one of the few nurses that these guys would have been able to identify at first sight.
Over the years, Dr Robert Grossman made some fairly grandiose claims about his presence in TR1. However, the record simply doesn't support it. Of the other doctors known to have been in the room, only Kenneth Salyer remembered him. Even then, Salyer wasn't sure if Grossman even entered the room, and was sure that if Grossman did, then only did so "for a very brief time."
When Paul O'Connor first appears in the record, he said that after the body was removed from the casket, he was herded out of the Bethesda morgue and remained outside for the bulk of the procedure. Over time, he sort of wormed his way back into the room after enough retellings of the story.
And, there's the sad case of the Bethesda x-ray tech Jerrol Custer. Read Walt Brown's review of _In the Eye of History_ if you want the details of the various, mutually contradictory stories that Custer began to spout in the 90's.
There are people who have inserted themselves into the assassination story, but were never there. Gordon Arnold and Beverly Olivier come to mind.
Others who actually were part of the drama still managed their own self-aggrandizing additions to the story. I've already mentioned some of those. In his WDC testimony James Humes declares himself a forensic pathologist, but had neither the training nor experience to do so.
The upshot is, there are a lot of almost-too-good-to-be-true stories that have popped up out of nowhere over the years. A very large proportion of these have turned out to be dubious, if not outright BS. Any story like Barrett's needs to be treated carefully and with due suspicion until it can either be independently supported or shown to be trash.
-
First of all, I started the sentence with the word "If". Did you miss that?
Didn't miss it at all. Also didn't miss that it's just a conjecture on your part. Barrett never claimed to have actually seen the contents of the wallet as far as I know. Further, if there are two Oswald wallets with different IDs, can you really just assume that they are copies of each other?
Secondly, let me put it like this; The fake Hidell ID has Oswald's photo on it. That's a fact. Bentley, who took the wallet from Oswald in the car, after his arrest, said nothing about an Hidell ID. No DPD report filed by any of the officers in the car with Oswald mentions the name Hidell, despite the fact that it is crucial evidence as it would link Oswald to the name on the order forms for the rifle and revolver. All this, and the interview Bentley gave on TV about the content of the wallet, justifies the conclusion that the Hidell ID was not in the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald.
Gus Rose was given a wallet, by an unidentified officer, who told him it was Oswald's, just like what happened with the jacket (Go figure!). And low and behold in that wallet there was this fake Hidell ID with Oswald's photo. IIRC Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person.
So, how did this unidentified officer manage to give a wallet with an Hidell ID to Gus Rose, who was the first to talk to Oswald after his arrival at the DPD HQ?
The only logical explanation, IMO, for that ID being in the wallet is that Rose was given the wallet which Barrett said Westbrook was looking at when he asked him about knowing Oswald or Hidell.
Or can you come up with another explanation?
To begin with, You are wrong about Bentley. He returned to DPD HQ, and was with Hill and Carroll first in the Homicide office, then with Hill and Carroll in the personnel division office writing reports. After that, he gave the wallet to TL Baker, who worked with Rose under Fritz. Only after handing off the wallet did Bentley go to the hospital. This pretty much kills the scenario you are trying to insinuate.
So, Baker might well be your "unidentified officer".
-
They certainly seem to be involved in something. There is a car that has attracted police attention for some reason, and the officer at the scene suspects that they might be involved with it, which is why he calls in their names for further information. Why wouldn't Westbrook do the same if he found identification in the mystery wallet?
"Certainly seem to be involved"? Based on what? A cop, probably abusing his authority, stopping three black men in a car. Of course they must be up to something, right? How pathetic.
BS like that happened in the 60's and is still happening now on a daily basis.
There is a car that has attracted police attention for some reason
That's called a traffic stop
and the officer at the scene suspects that they might be involved with it
Involved with what? What would be the reasonable suspicion?
Why wouldn't Westbrook do the same if he found identification in the mystery wallet?
Duh... Because he found it at a murder scene and could be linking an innocent white man to a serious crime.
Bottom line is that you are trying to compare apples and oranges and it's lame.
And where is it written that the police will never broadcast the name of a suspect? The cops will even have the TV news broadcast names and photos of suspects to the public for certain crimes.
For what "certain crimes"?
And sure, they will use the TV news in a search for serious offenders, but only after there is no more reasonable doubt that the suspect is actually involved in the crime. That's not the case here. Westbrook could not make the determination at the scene that the wallet for certain belonged to Tippit's killer.
But that's not really what I asked. I asked about the "witnesses and gawkers" (note the plural). Barrett belonged to neither of these groups, and was only one person. So you want to try again, and not dodge this time?
An FBI agent present at the scene of a crime somehow isn't a witness? Are you for real? I don't know who else Westbrook asked, but I do know that Bob Barrett said he did ask him. I could argue that off duty officer Croy, who was the first to arrive at the scene, confirmed the presence of the wallet, but I don't want to do that simply because the only way Croy apparently confirmed it was in a text written on a photograph which now, for unclear reasons, can not be produced. So, we're stuck with Barrett said and you, rather dishonestly, as per usuals, are asking about more than one person because you know full well that we don't know who else (if anybody) was asked. All you want to do is argue that just because an FBI agent is the only one who came forward with the information it is somehow not valid because he's the only one. It's utterly pathetic and exactly what is to be expected from a LN.
And, out of all of those he would have asked, not one would have remembered or said anything about a police captain walking around the crime scene asking about Oswald/Hidell? That would be a hell of a thing for so many people to forget.
So many people? How many people were there? And who said that no one would have remembered? You seem to think that anybody who is present at a crime scene would automatically want to get involved by coming forward. Talk to some murder investigators for once and you'll find out quickly that's not the way it works in the real world.
If it was found unclaimed at the crime scene, did not belong to the victim, and contained ID, I would figure that the first thing the officers on scene would do would be to call in to HQ for a records check on any identity found in the wallet. If nothing else, it would allow the DPD to quickly rule out the owner as a suspect. And it would quickly spread word of a valuable lead to a lot people who could use it most at a critical time.
You can "figure" all you want. Get back to me when you have something more solid than just your imagination. What you think the authorities should have done doesn't matter one iota.
it would allow the DPD to quickly rule out the owner as a suspect.
How exactly do you rule out somebody as a suspect for a murder by doing a name/ID check?
The Robert Harris Rule: when someone's arguments are centered on the word "obvious" it's generally because there are no other arguments to center around
You seem well aware of that "rule", judging by your "arguments".
But I'll gladly tell you why both pieces of evidence (the wallet and the jacket) are tainted. There is no chain of custody for either. Both were apparently handled by officers that remained unidentified. Both pieces of evidence dissappeared out of sight for a while and then suddenly showed up at the police station. And for both items there is a problem with the description of it. A jacket first described several times as being white suddenly turned grey at the police station and it is marked by police officers who could not and did not hold it simply because they were not at the location where it was found. The wallet was initially described as containing a drivers' license and a credit card suddenly showed up at the police station without those two items in it but instead with a fake Hidell in it.
As an LN apologist for the incompetent DPD you will no doubt refuse to accept that any of this is a problem because you have to to keep a flawed weak narrative alive.
-
And Jack Tatum is one more source that Oswald delivered a coup-de-grace shot than the CTs have that Oswald didn't. So, by your own logick, you should automatically believe Tatum just as you choose to believe Barrett
Jack Tatum said nothing about a wallet and thus is hardly relevant to the discussion. But I have no problem with Tatum believing or even claiming that he saw Oswald on 11/22/63. You just argued that if anybody else was asked by Westbrook about knowing Oswald and Hidell would have remembered and come forward. Now you are arguing that a guy who claimed, many years later, to have been a witness is to be believed. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
Any way, eye-witness testimony is the weakest evidence there is. There are more witnesses who actually picked Oswald out of a (questionable) line up, but if Oswald physically couldn't have been at the scene when Tippit was shot, those "identifications" are pretty meaningless.
In his autobiography, John Connally wrote that most of his memories of November 22, 1963 really weren't his own memories, but things he'd gleaned from others or from what he'd seen or read in the years after the event. Over time, Connally's memories melded with these other sources into their own composite narrative. That's why he wrote about secret service agents immediately jumping out of the Queen Mary and heading straight for the TSBD.
Audrey Bell told the ARRB (and others) about her efforts in TR1 that day. After the assassination, JC Price had every Parkland staffer, medical or not, who was involved in the treatment of either Kennedy or Connally write a report about their activities that day. But there is no report from Audrey Bell in the resulting collection. The WC staff asked the various doctors and nurses who worked in TR1 that day to list the other staffers they remembered working with them. Bell's name is never mentioned. Almost all of the physicians in that room were surgeons, surgical residents, or interns on their surgery rotation. Bell, who was one of the supervisor nurses running the OR suite was one of the few nurses that these guys would have been able to identify at first sight.
Over the years, Dr Robert Grossman made some fairly grandiose claims about his presence in TR1. However, the record simply doesn't support it. Of the other doctors known to have been in the room, only Kenneth Salyer remembered him. Even then, Salyer wasn't sure if Grossman even entered the room, and was sure that if Grossman did, then only did so "for a very brief time."
When Paul O'Connor first appears in the record, he said that after the body was removed from the casket, he was herded out of the Bethesda morgue and remained outside for the bulk of the procedure. Over time, he sort of wormed his way back into the room after enough retellings of the story.
And, there's the sad case of the Bethesda x-ray tech Jerrol Custer. Read Walt Brown's review of _In the Eye of History_ if you want the details of the various, mutually contradictory stories that Custer began to spout in the 90's.
There are people who have inserted themselves into the assassination story, but were never there. Gordon Arnold and Beverly Olivier come to mind.
Others who actually were part of the drama still managed their own self-aggrandizing additions to the story. I've already mentioned some of those. In his WDC testimony James Humes declares himself a forensic pathologist, but had neither the training nor experience to do so.
The upshot is, there are a lot of almost-too-good-to-be-true stories that have popped up out of nowhere over the years. A very large proportion of these have turned out to be dubious, if not outright BS. Any story like Barrett's needs to be treated carefully and with due suspicion until it can either be independently supported or shown to be trash.
And there it is..... the classic LN claim that Bob Barrett probably misremembered, based on nothing more than wishful thinking. The problem is that you've got no reason to assume that Barrett misremembered. You are not treating Barrett's story carefully and with due suspicion. You are dismissing it outright simply because it doesn't fit the narrative you prefer.
On the other hand, you are presenting Tatum as a credible witness for whom doesn't apply what you claim applies to Connally, Audrey Bell, Paul O'Connor etc.
If you believe Tatum (as you seem to do) then why don't you believe Barrett? And, btw, let's not forget that Barrett told Hosty, in a private conversation, about the wallet long before it became public information. It was never intended for publication.
-
Didn't miss it at all. Also didn't miss that it's just a conjecture on your part. Barrett never claimed to have actually seen the contents of the wallet as far as I know. Further, if there are two Oswald wallets with different IDs, can you really just assume that they are copies of each other?
And I didn't claim that Barrett actually saw the contents of the wallet. All I said is that Bob Barrett said that Westbrook was looking at the wallet when he asked him about the two names.
Further, if there are two Oswald wallets with different IDs, can you really just assume that they are copies of each other?
What is this gibberish? Who said anything about wallets being copies of each other?
Bentley said on TV that he found an ID for Oswald, a drivers' license and a credit card.
Westbrook asked Barrett about Oswald and Hidell.
How can these wallets be copies of each other?
To begin with, You are wrong about Bentley. He returned to DPD HQ, and was with Hill and Carroll first in the Homicide office, then with Hill and Carroll in the personnel division office writing reports. After that, he gave the wallet to TL Baker, who worked with Rose under Fritz. Only after handing off the wallet did Bentley go to the hospital. This pretty much kills the scenario you are trying to insinuate.
So, Baker might well be your "unidentified officer".
That's simply not true, at least not all of it. But, I'm curious, where can I find Bentley's report in which he makes those statements?
If the wallet Bentley took from Oswald contained a Hidell ID, then why isn't that mentioned in any report. And if Baker (who you say worked with Rose) was the one Bentley gave the wallet to, why did Gus Rose not simply identify him as the man who gave him the wallet? And why wouldn't T.L. Baker mention something like that in his extremely brief WC testimony?
It seems you haven't got anything of substance as is clearly demonstrated by your speculation that "Baker might well be the "unidentified officer"".
Actually, your own arguments make it impossible for Baker to be that unidentified officer. We know from Gus Rose that he started talking to Oswald directly after he was brought in to the station. At that time Rose was given a wallet. If Bentley, after delivering Oswald, first went to the Homicide office and then wrote a report in the personnel division office, before giving the wallet from the car to Baker, then that wallet could not have been the one that Rose was given immediately after Oswald was brought in.
-
OK genius.... IF the man was using a S&W, WHY would he swing the cylinder out of the frame and the push the extractor rod and only remove a single cartridge?? Incidentally, ... The witness said that the fleeing gunman was holding the gun in his hand with the barrel pointing up and shaking it to facilitate the removal of the spent shells as he removed ONE SHELL AT A TIME.
"The witness" let it slip that Tippit resided on East Tenth... A DNA test of Tippit's alleged love child would confirm motive of her
mother's husband to shoot Tippit...
https://www.jdtippit.com/v-davis_nov.htm
"Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; we just saw a police car sitting on the side of the road.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the police car parked?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was parked between the hedge that marks the apartment house where he lives in and the house next door.
Mr. BELIN. Was it on your side of East 10th or the other side of the street?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was on our side, the same side that we lived on.
Mr. BELIN. Was it headed as you looked to the police car, towards your right or towards your left?
Mrs. DAVIS. Right.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any police officer in a police car when you first saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir..."
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Witherspoon%20Johnnie%20Maxie/Item%2001.pdf
"...General Johnnie Maxie - Stephen Thompson, Jr. material including marriage license, divorce decrees,
employment and children.
HSCA synopsis of interviews with:
Johnnie Maxie Witherspoon
Austin Cook
Maebert Cook
As you wade through this stuff, you may come to the same conclusion I did, that Jack Moriarity did
a poor job not only of interviewing but following up on clues,
....
Coupling all this with the testimony of Virginia Davis and William Scoggins it would seem Johnnie
was living at the residence occupied by Ann McRaven on Tenth.
My sheet on Susan Marie Thompson might help explain the "frantic" phone call made by Tippit from
the Top Ten record store. Susan was born June 17, 1964 which would mean she was conceived
around September 17, 1963. Therefore, questions related to Johnnie's pregnancy would have been
resolve around November 17, 1963, five days prior to the assassination. Tippit could have called her
asking if she was pregnant and when she answered in the affirmative he raced over to the house.
I also have the Tippit autopsy photographs. They are negatives in 2 1/4" X 2 1/4" format. Once I
scrape up the money to have them converted into 8 X 10 glossy prints I will forward you a set.
Dave
p.s. Harold - Don't worry about the book. I will try to pick one up locally. We you have the
opportunity sending me an index would be fine.
-
There are people who have inserted themselves into the assassination story, but were never there.
You mean like Mary Bledsoe and Jack Tatum?
Others who actually were part of the drama still managed their own self-aggrandizing additions to the story.
You mean like Howard Brennan and Nick McDonald?
-
Barrett is the only source that Westbrook --or anyone else-- said anything about Oswald or Hidell at the crime scene before Oswald was arrested. And Barrett didn't start saying this until decades later.
That Barrett waited decades to tell his story doesn't mean he's wrong or lying. He, like others who participated in the coverups, had a career to protect and he believed Oswald was guilty anyway. His only issue is that he believes the DPD lied about Oswald's wallet.
-
Bill Simpich did a deep dive into the "Two Oswald Wallets" story back in 2015:
The Murder of JFK: Another Puzzle Piece Solved
A local TV newscast showed footage taken by the local ABC affiliate WFAA on that date more than 50 years ago. In the film, Dallas police captain Pinky Westbrook can be seen handling a wallet at the scene of Tippit’s murder. It appears to be the wallet of the accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.
WFAA newscast, 11/22/13
What makes the footage remarkable is that the official story was that the wallet was not found until about an hour later, when Dallas police detective Paul Bentley removed it from Oswald’s back pocket shortly after taking him into custody at the Texas Theatre, several blocks away from where Tippit was gunned down.
FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene of Tippit’s murder and is still alive in Pell City, Alabama, now calls Paul Bentley’s story “hogwash.”
The wallet is important because its contents connected Oswald to the guns used in the murder of President Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
The WFAA story
The WFAA story last fall said that the wallet mystery had been “settled.” Reporter Jason Whitley interviewed retired FBI analyst Farris Rookstool, who conducted an investigation of the two wallet stories. Rookstool concluded that the wallet seen in the 1963 footage is an exact match with the Oswald wallet now at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland.
Rookstool argues that the circular snaps, metal strips, and a zipper over the cash compartment are identical in both instances.
Rookstool’s conclusion is that the video footage of the wallet proves that Oswald killed Officer Tippit about 49 minutes after President Kennedy was shot and killed in downtown Dallas a mile and half away.
(https://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/body_imgs/267-oswald-images.jpg)
Left screen: The wallet found at the murder scene of officer J. D. Tippit.
Right screen: The wallet found at the time of Oswald's arrest.
https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/32954-focus-the-murder-of-jfk-another-puzzle-piece-solved
The Murder of JFK, Part 2: Counterfeit ID Planted in Oswald's Wallet?
In my previous article, I asked the question “Who found Oswald’s wallet at the murder scene?”
Here, I pose another question: Was a phony identification card for “Alek Hidell” inserted into the wallet after Oswald’s arrest? “Alek Hidell” was the name used to order the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository the day JFK was killed.
Listen here to Dallas Police Department Officer Gerald Hill discuss the capture of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963. [Editor’s note: to cut to the chase, go to 3:17 in the audio file.]
Listen for what Hill does not say:
He does not say anything about “Hidell” or an identification card.
Is this omission significant? I think it is.
My previous article recounted the details. FBI agent Bob Barrett said he saw Oswald’s wallet in the hands of DPD Captain Pinky Westbrook at the scene of the murder of Dallas police office J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.
The article also recounted that the arresting officer, Paul Bentley, told a different story. Bentley said he found Oswald’s wallet while frisking him in the police car after leaving the Texas Theatre, where Oswald was arrested on November 22.
Both men say that the wallet contained identification cards for both Lee Harvey Oswald and “Alek Hidell.”
So was Oswald carrying the Alek Hidell ID in his wallet when he was arrested?
He had not been previously seen using the ID card, or the Hidell alias. Oswald wasn’t carrying a “Hidell” ID card in his wallet three months before in August 1963 when he was arrested in New Orleans for fighting with Cuban exiles disturbed by his pro-Castro activism. After his arrest, Oswald said he was in touch with a fellow Castro supporter named “Hidell,” which was a lie.
Questions
If Oswald’s wallet containing the Hidell ID card was found on Oswald’s person on November 22, 1963, why do none of the contemporaneous police reports from that day say anything about “Hidell” or an ID card in another name besides Oswald’s?
Bentley did not say that the Hidell ID was in Oswald’s wallet until June 11, 1964. Bentley never testified to the Warren Commission.
The critical question is not so much whether you believe Oswald created the obviously false Selective Service card identifying him as Alek James Hidell. You can go round and round on that one. (Genuine Selective Service cards did not include a photo.) He could have made the phony card in his job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, a photographic production company, where he worked for a few months starting in late 1962.
A better question is why would Oswald carry that card in his wallet on November 22? It wasn’t like he was seeking notoriety after JFK was killed. When asked later that day if he had shot the president, Oswald denied it.
Only on November 23 did the finding of the “Hidell” card become public knowledge in a statement made by Henry Wade, the Dallas district attorney.
That statement came just hours after the FBI allegedly discovered early on the morning of November 23 that “Hidell” had ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle thought to have been used in the assassination, and had it delivered to Oswald’s post office box address. Now, for the first time, there was a paper trail supposedly linking the rifle found on the sixth floor to Oswald!
Wallet disputed
Mark Lane, the attorney hired by Lee Oswald’s mother, told the Warren Commission that the Hidell card was only found in the wallet after the discovery of Hidell’s mail order rifle purchase. Nonetheless, the Warren Commission refused to let Lane cross-examine the district attorney about the Hidell card and the rifle.
The Secret Service men present for the interrogation of Oswald in the Dallas Police Department headquarters on November 22 recalled no questions about the “Hidell” ID card. And it wasn’t like they were totally in the dark. Oswald had referred to a man named ”Hidell” as a Fair Play for Cuba Committee leader and was asked about it on November 22.
From November 23 on, the witnesses who wrote reports on November 22 slowly began to remember that Hidell’s ID was in Oswald’s wallet.
Almost everybody’s story was different, which is noteworthy.
Law enforcement officers are trained to include all relevant data in their reports. It’s hard to think of anything more relevant than the supposed finding of the Hidell ID in Oswald’s wallet on November 22.
Were all these witnesses given a secret order to not mention the Hidell name? Unlikely.
Was the Hidell ID planted in Oswald’s wallet after his arrest?
None of the five officers who drove Oswald from the Texas Theater to the police station mentioned Bentley’s discovery of the Hidell ID in their reports, including Bentley himself.
More than a week after November 22, Bentley’s report of Oswald’s arrest says only that “on the way to the city hall…. I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook’s office to make a report of the arrest.”
The date of the report was December 3, a rather disquieting 12-day delay, given Bentley’s claim that he went to Westbrook’s office to file a report immediately after the arrest. In any case, Bentley didn’t mention the Hidell ID.
Gerald Hill told the Warren Commission months later that Bentley had found the ID while en route to police headquarters, recalling that it was the same name that had been used to order the rifle. In contrast, hours after the Hidell ID was discovered, here’s what Hill told NBC:
HILL: The only way we found out what his name was was to remove his billfold and check it ourself; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was….
Q: What was the name on the billfold?
HILL: Lee H. Oswald. O-S-W-A-L-D.
In a radio interview earlier that afternoon, Hill mesmerized the world by revealing Oswald’s time in the USSR and that he was a “communist.”
What went unnoticed: On both occasions, Hill said nothing about the phony Hidell ID.
Bentley’s and Hill’s failure to remember the “Hidell” ID was contagious.
A review of the reports filed by other three officers who transported Oswald from the Texas Theater – Charles T Ford (December 2, 1963), Bob Carroll (December 3), and K.E. Lyons (December 4) – shows that none of them said anything about finding the ”Hidell” ID.
Yet several of them later told the Warren Commission that they remembered the card.
They also claimed that the Hidell alias was passed on to Dallas HQ as they were driving Oswald to the police station at 2 pm – but there is nothing in the radio log.
It appears that the first reference about “Hidell” may have come from George Doughty at the Identification Section of the Dallas police at about 3:15 pm, passing on information about “a selective service card bearing the name of Hidell” to military intelligence officer Robert Jones in San Antonio.
According to the military intelligence officer, his caller made no reference to “Oswald” aliases, multiple IDs, or that the ID was an obvious counterfeit because it had a photo!
Why would Doughty withhold any of that information? Especially that the draft card was an obvious counterfeit? It was hardly a moment to test the veracity of military intelligence.
Using the information about “Hidell,” military intelligence was able to cross-index “Oswald and Hidell” from files that were mysteriously destroyed in 1973.
Right about the same moment that afternoon, Dallas Police intelligence officer Don Stringfellow sent a post to a different military intelligence officer inaccurately claiming that Oswald was a “card carrying Communist” and that he had “defected to Cuba in 1959.” By the end of the day, this information was sent to the U.S. Strike Command at Fort MacDill in Florida, the base prepared for any attack to be launched against Cuba. Some people were ready to see an attack on Cuba.
Some basic questions should be asked: During that long afternoon, what did the Dallas police know about Oswald? Which officers knew what? And how?
By 10 pm on November 22, FBI agent Manning Clements questioned Oswald and reviewed the contents of his wallet on the desk. Clements said that the Hidell ID was inside the wallet at that time, but Oswald wouldn’t answer any questions about it. Clements’ inventory of the wallet cites the Hidell ID, but was not dictated until November 23.
(https://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs18/018418-oswald-id-card-101815.jpg)
-
In a post, I asked Martin this question: "And where is it written that the police will never broadcast the name of a suspect?" This question is a response to your position that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio."
In his response to my post, Martin neglected to answer my question. So I ask again: where is it written that police will never broadcast the name of a suspect? Where is this a policy, anywhere? When has this been a policy?
-
That Barrett waited decades to tell his story doesn't mean he's wrong or lying. He, like others who participated in the coverups, had a career to protect and he believed Oswald was guilty anyway. His only issue is that he believes the DPD lied about Oswald's wallet.
That Barrett waited decades to tell his story doesn't mean he's wrong or lying.
You're technically correct. However, it's still a red flag. Especially considering how badly so many of the other latter day revelations turned out. W
-
In a post, I asked Martin this question: "And where is it written that the police will never broadcast the name of a suspect?" This question is a response to your position that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio."
In his response to my post, Martin neglected to answer my question. So I ask again: where is it written that police will never broadcast the name of a suspect? Where is this a policy, anywhere? When has this been a policy?
Who said it was written somewhere? It may well be part of some guidelines but I have no intention to look for them, because your question is of no significance for the case we are discussing. Besides, I can just as easily ask you where it is written that cops are allowed and should mention names of suspects on the air. It's a red herring.
The fact of the matter is, that in the Tippit case no name of a suspect was broadcast and the mere fact that you think the name would or should have been broadcast is absolutely meaningless and does not prove that Westbrook didn't hold a wallet with an Oswald and a Hidell ID in it. That's the argument you want to make and it's a pathetic one, just like your now debunked claim that Baker could have been the unidentified officer who gave Gus Rose the wallet.
That Barrett waited decades to tell his story doesn't mean he's wrong or lying.
You're technically correct. However, it's still a red flag. Especially considering how badly so many of the other latter day revelations turned out. W
No, it's not a red flag at all. Even if all the other people in the world remembered something incorrectly, that still doesn't mean that Barrett did. He mentioned what he believed happened to Hosty in a private conversation that was never intended for publication. He believed Oswald was the killer but, because of his knowledge of the wallet at the Tippit scene, it was his opinion that the DPD didn't handle that matter by the book. That was all.
The bottom line is that you have no real reason, except your bias, to argue that Barrett misremembered. It's the classic LN strategy to call any witness mistaken who says something that the LNs don't like.
-
I agree with Richard, a wallet which is excellent supportive evidence of Oswald being at the crime scene and then covered up is absolutely bonkers.
It's no wonder the CT's never give a plausible narrative for this Oswald wallet because even they must realize that there isn't one.
Anyway, the original video clip shows exactly what happened, The Police Officer has no worries that his gun is pointed towards the detective but when the civilian reaches for his wallet the Officer hurriedly points the gun away. No big mystery.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBhM4yj0/Giving-back-the-wallet-370p.gif)
JohnM
-
I agree with Richard, a wallet which is excellent supportive evidence of Oswald being at the crime scene and then covered up is absolutely bonkers.
It's no wonder the CT's never give a plausible narrative for this Oswald wallet because even they must realize that there isn't one.
Anyway, the original video clip shows exactly what happened, The Police Officer has no worries that his gun is pointed towards the detective but when the civilian reaches for his wallet the Officer hurriedly points the gun away. No big mystery.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBhM4yj0/Giving-back-the-wallet-370p.gif)
JohnM
a wallet which is excellent supportive evidence of Oswald being at the crime scene and then covered up is absolutely bonkers.
Who said it was covered up? It was already known that Bentley took a uninteresting wallet from Oswald in the car. The easist way to solve the problem is just switch wallets and make the Bentley one dissappear. It's isn't difficult to understand, yet you seem to be struggling. What else is new?
the original video clip shows exactly what happened, The Police Officer has no worries that his gun is pointed towards the detective but when the civilian reaches for his wallet
What makes you think it was a civilian reaching for the wallet and who says that it was that civilian's wallet? If you want to make up stuff, you need to do far better than this, John.
What would interest me is who is the officer in uniform holding the wallet? Could that be Croy?
-
The easist way to solve the problem is just switch wallets and make the Bentley one dissappear.
What problem, there's no need for this to get any more complicated with ridiculous wallet switching, do you ever think through your bizarre convoluted scenarios?
Oswald had identification for himself and an alias, and if the Dallas Police said Oswald had two wallets, no one would bat an eyelid.
(https://assets2.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2013/07/18/c01e37b3-1c4e-11e3-9918-005056850598/thumbnail/640x396/e8157035281aa3d528bed511fcd36425/LHO_fakeID.jpg)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5qsAAOSw851cCs2Y/s-l500.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/11/article-0-193E760B000005DC-816_634x422.jpg)
Try again! Hahahaha!
JohnM
-
What problem, there's no need for this to get any more complicated with ridiculous wallet switching, do you ever think through your bizarre convoluted scenarios?
Oswald had identification for himself and an alias, and if the Dallas Police said Oswald had two wallets, no one would bat an eyelid.
(https://assets2.cbsnewsstatic.com/hub/i/r/2013/07/18/c01e37b3-1c4e-11e3-9918-005056850598/thumbnail/640x396/e8157035281aa3d528bed511fcd36425/LHO_fakeID.jpg)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5qsAAOSw851cCs2Y/s-l500.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/11/article-0-193E760B000005DC-816_634x422.jpg)
Try again! Hahahaha!
JohnM
What problem, there's no need for this to get any more complicated with ridiculous wallet switching, do you ever think through your bizarre convoluted scenarios?
There is nothing convoluted. What you most likely simply do not want to understand is that it was already known that Oswald's wallet was taken from him by Paul Bentley in the car.
How do you explain the wallet at the Tippit scene, containing a fake Hidell ID, when the suspect still had his wallet on him when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.
Are you really too dumb to understand this or just pretending to be?
Oswald had identification for himself and an alias, and if the Dallas Police said Oswald had two wallets, no one would bat an eyelid.
BS... the guy was known to be poor and had hardly any money on him. Why in the world would such a guy be running around with two wallets and then conviniently drop the one with a fake Hidell ID at the scene? You really can't be that naive, can you?
Try again! Hahahaha!
No need. You haven't argued anything of substance. But why don't you at least try to answer my question;
What makes you think it was a civilian reaching for the wallet and who says that it was that civilian's wallet?
Or do you prefer to continue to be just another mediocre LN who makes all sorts of pathetic claims and statements but never backs them up with answers to simple questions?
-
I agree with Richard, a wallet which is excellent supportive evidence of Oswald being at the crime scene and then covered up is absolutely bonkers.
It's no wonder the CT's never give a plausible narrative for this Oswald wallet because even they must realize that there isn't one.
Anyway, the original video clip shows exactly what happened, The Police Officer has no worries that his gun is pointed towards the detective but when the civilian reaches for his wallet the Officer hurriedly points the gun away. No big mystery.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBhM4yj0/Giving-back-the-wallet-370p.gif)
JohnM
Martin also made this claim about the object: "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?" Compare that to the film clip. The facts, logic, and common sense are not relevant to him.
-
Martin also made this claim about the object: "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?" Compare that to the film clip. The facts, logic, and common sense are not relevant to him.
You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. The video clearly shows you are the one blowing hot air.
And the wallet is in fact open when the plain clothes man puts his finger on in. Are you blind or just a liar?
-
In a post, I asked Martin this question: "And where is it written that the police will never broadcast the name of a suspect?" This question is a response to your position that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio."
In his response to my post, Martin neglected to answer my question. So I ask again: where is it written that police will never broadcast the name of a suspect? Where is this a policy, anywhere? When has this been a policy?
Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt. That is his leitmotif. There is no such policy. What we do know is that the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast. It would be gross negligence for the police not to disseminate information to their fellow officers concerning a dangerous murder suspect on the loose in the Tippit case if they had a wallet left at the murder scene with an ID. It is either the wallet of a witness still at the scene or Tippit's citation book.
-
You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. The video clearly shows you are the one blowing hot air.
And the wallet is in fact open when the plain clothes man puts his finger on in. Are you blind or just a liar?
Unreal. You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not 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?"
Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not? And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?
-
Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt. That is his leitmotif. There is no such policy. What we do know is that the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast. It would be gross negligence for the police not to disseminate information to their fellow officers concerning a dangerous murder suspect on the loose in the Tippit case if they had a wallet left at the murder scene with an ID. It is either the wallet of a witness still at the scene or Tippit's citation book.
Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt. That is his leitmotif. There is no such policy.
This is what happens when a LN runs out of arguments.
What we do know is that the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast.
Yes, but not a name of a suspect, and that's what we were talking about.
It is either the wallet of a witness still at the scene or Tippit's citation book.
Yeah right... keep on telling yourself that. Maybe one day you'll believe it.
-
Unreal. You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not 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?"
Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not? And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?
You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not looking through it.
Another lie. I never said what they were looking at was not open. You just made that up.....
Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not?
Of course... I never said anything different.
And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?
Of course it was accurate. You claimed they were looking through a notebook and that simply isn't true, no matter how much spin you try to put on it.
-
Martin makes up facts to suit his desired narrative but then applies an impossible standard of proof to any fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt to suggest false doubt.
What are these “facts” that lend themselves to Oswald’s guilt? You mean your usual unsubstantiated claims?
-
You claimed whatever they were looking at was not open and they were not looking through it.
Another lie. I never said what they were looking at was not open. You just made that up.....
Do you agree that whatever it is that they are looking at (i.e. wallet, notebook, citation book) that it is open and they are looking at the contents or not?
Of course... I never said anything different.
And, therefore, your prior comment is not accurate?
Of course it was accurate. You claimed they were looking through a notebook and that simply isn't true, no matter how much spin you try to put on it.
Huh? You are really losing it. I quoted your direct words from post #88 on this thread. Here it is again: "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?" So you claimed the police were not "looking through anything" and the wallet was "not opened." Is that an accurate depiction of what is being shown in the film clip? The police clearly have the item "open" and are looking through it.
-
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?
Here is Martin's post suggesting the police did not look through the item or even open it. Compare that to film clip of the event. Martin claims it is being held but "not opened."
-
I agree with Richard, a wallet which is excellent supportive evidence of Oswald being at the crime scene and then covered up is absolutely bonkers.
It's no wonder the CT's never give a plausible narrative for this Oswald wallet because even they must realize that there isn't one.
Anyway, the original video clip shows exactly what happened, The Police Officer has no worries that his gun is pointed towards the detective but when the civilian reaches for his wallet the Officer hurriedly points the gun away. No big mystery.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBhM4yj0/Giving-back-the-wallet-370p.gif)
JohnM
There are reasons from that clip to support the conclusion that this is Tippit's notebook or citation book. Look at how they are holding it. Vertically as though reading from a note page. In fact a page from the object appears to blow up at the very end from the wind. That suggests it has paper pages like a notebook or citation book rather than a wallet. In addition, they appear to be reading something from the object even tracing it with a finger. If they were taking down a witness ID, they would be writing that information down. But there is no indication that they are writing anything down from the object. I've never seen anyone asked by the police for an ID to hand their entire wallet to the policeman. Typically, they would remove the requested item (e.g. license) and hand it to them. I'm not saying this is conclusive of the issue, but it lends itself in that direction. What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.
-
Huh? You are really losing it. I quoted your direct words from post #88 on this thread. Here it is again: "Nobody is looking through anything. In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened, so where does this BS comes from?" So you claimed the police were not "looking through anything" and the wallet was "not opened." Is that an accurate depiction of what is being shown in the film clip? The police clearly have the item "open" and are looking through it.
Here is Martin's post suggesting the police did not look through the item or even open it. Compare that to film clip of the event. Martin claims it is being held but "not opened."
Aha, now I understand where you are coming from. Yes I did say that, but I phrased it poorly.
You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. For somebody to be able to look through a notebook it would needed to be opened, for each page to be turned.
That's what I meant when I said the wallet wasn't opened. My bad.
-
There are reasons from that clip to support the conclusion that this is Tippit's notebook or citation book. Look at how they are holding it. Vertically as though reading from a note page. In fact a page from the object appears to blow up at the very end from the wind. That suggests it has paper pages like a notebook or citation book rather than a wallet. In addition, they appear to be reading something from the object even tracing it with a finger. If they were taking down a witness ID, they would be writing that information down. But there is no indication that they are writing anything down from the object. I've never seen anyone asked by the police for an ID to hand their entire wallet to the policeman. Typically, they would remove the requested item (e.g. license) and hand it to them. I'm not saying this is conclusive of the issue, but it lends itself in that direction. What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.
So many words and it's all selfsevering speculation.
What you see "blow up at the very end from the wind" is the flap of the wallet.
Bottom line is still that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene, said it was a wallet and the LNs can not even begin to explain why they would doubt what he said. In fact, they have no reasonable or plausible grounds to doubt his words, nor do they have anything else but speculation about what it could be if not a wallet.
What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.
Ok, mr. know it all.... surprise us all and prove (not with so-called "logic" or "common sence" but with actual evenidence it isn't a wallet!
Perhaps you can track down the uniformed officer holding the wallet and have him confirm it wasn't a wallet after all. That would do the trick. Go on then...
-
Aha, now I understand where you are coming from. Yes I did say that, but I phrased it poorly.
You claimed it was a notebook and they were looking through it. For somebody to be able to look through a notebook it would needed to be opened, for each page to be turned.
That's what I meant when I said the wallet wasn't opened. My bad.
You not only phrased it "poorly" but incorrectly. Again, the object that they are looking at (whether a small notebook or wallet) is clearly "open" and the police are "looking through it." It makes no sense to explain away your claim based on some bizarre distinction about it being a notebook. And you referenced a "wallet" not a notebook. Regardless, the object would obviously have to be "open" to read the contents of either a wallet or notebook. Something you suggested didn't happen.
-
So many words and it's all selfsevering speculation.
What you see "blow up at the very end from the wind" is the flap of the wallet.
Bottom line is still that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene, said it was a wallet and the LNs can not even begin to explain why they would doubt what he said. In fact, they have no reasonable or plausible grounds to doubt his words, nor do they have anything else but speculation about what it could be if not a wallet.
What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.
Ok, mr. know it all.... surprise us all and prove (not with so-called "logic" or "common sence" but with actual evenidence it isn't a wallet!
Perhaps you can track down the uniformed officer holding the wallet and have him confirm it wasn't a wallet after all. That would do the trick. Go on then...
Do you notice how they are holding the object? Vertically away from the officer. Is that more typical of how you look at the contents of a wallet or small notebook? Are they writing down any information from the object like a witness ID? No. Would a witness typically hand a police officer their entire wallet or remove whatever they are being asked for and hand it to them? One person in the film traces something with his finger. Why do that unless it is some form of writing like might be contained in a small notebook or citation book? Is there any accounting for Tippit's citation book? He must have had one - right? That is how police officers write tickets. Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene and then disappeared from history for all the reasons noted. None of which have been rebutted including why the police would not have radioed the name of any suspect or at least description derived from the information contained in the wallet.
-
Do you notice how they are holding the object? Vertically away from the officer. Is that more typical of how you look at the contents of a wallet or small notebook? Are they writing down any information from the object like a witness ID? No. Would a witness typically hand a police officer their entire wallet or remove whatever they are being asked for and hand it to them? One person in the film traces something with his finger. Why do that unless it is some form of writing like might be contained in a small notebook or citation book? Is there any accounting for Tippit's citation book? He must have had one - right? That is how police officers write tickets. Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene and then disappeared from history for all the reasons noted. None of which have been rebutted including why the police would not have radioed the name of any suspect or at least description derived from the information contained in the wallet.
The same old speculation....
Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene
So you can't say for certain what it is but you can say without reservation that it isn't a wallet?
What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.
Your explanation isn't even an explanation. It's just a word salad with nothing conclusive to counter the fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene and saw the damned thing, said it was a wallet. You keep on ignorning that.... why is that?
-
The same old speculation....
Again, I'm not claiming with certainty that this is Tippit's citation book but it is a better explanation than a wallet left at the scene
So you can't say for certain what it is but you can say without reservation that it isn't a wallet?
Your explanation isn't even an explanation. It's just a word salad with nothing conclusive to counter the fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was at the scene and saw the damned thing, said it was a wallet. You keep on ignorning that.... why is that?
I provided my reasons based on logic and what is depicted in the film clip - none of which you addressed much less rebutted and much of which you falsely mischaracterized (i.e. claiming the wallet was not opened and the police weren't looking through it). Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet. I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed. Many people said things long after the events that are not true. You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.
-
I provided my reasons based on logic and what is depicted in the film clip - none of which you addressed much less rebutted and much of which you falsely mischaracterized (i.e. claiming the wallet was not opened and the police weren't looking through it). Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet. I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed. Many people said things long after the events that are not true. You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.
I provided my reasons based on logic
Please give me a break. Based on bias is closer to the truth.
Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.
Yes you were saying exactly that;
What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.
I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.
You have no way of knowing that.
Many people said things long after the events that are not true.
That doesn't mean you get to assume that everbody who said something long after the events was lying. You have no valid reason to assume that FBI agent Bob Barrett was lying, just like Barrett himself had no reason to lie. He told the story to Hosty in a private conversation, not to exonerate Oswald (who he still believed to be guilty) or to seek notoriety. He just expressed his opinion to another FBI agent that something strange was going at the DPD involving Oswald's wallet.
You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.
I deal with evidence on a case by case basis. If somebody makes a claim for which there is no substantiation, I treat it with caution.
Here we have Bob Barrett saying there was a wallet and we have video of what's clearly a wallet at the Tippit scene. You have not a shred of proof that it wasn't a wallet. Even your so-called "logic" isn't logical at all. You just assume it wasn't a wallet, because you don't want it to be a wallet. The circumstantial case involving the wallet(s) is a plausible one, which makes it possibly and likely true.
What is hilarious is that LNs are always going on about looking at the entire circumstantial case as a whole. I'm doing exactly that and looking at the circumstantial case of the DPD manipulating evidence (such as the jacket and the revolver) it is most certainly not beyond belief that Bob Barrett's story is in fact true. Whether you like it or not.
-
I provided my reasons based on logic
Please give me a break. Based on bias is closer to the truth.
Again, I'm not saying it can't be a wallet.
Yes you were saying exactly that;
I am saying it is not a wallet left at the scene for the reasons discussed.
You have no way of knowing that.
Many people said things long after the events that are not true.
That doesn't mean you get to assume that everbody who said something long after the events was lying. You have no valid reason to assume that FBI agent Bob Barrett was lying, just like Barrett himself had no reason to lie. He told the story to Hosty in a private conversation, not to exonerate Oswald (who he still believed to be guilty) or to seek notoriety. He just expressed his opinion to another FBI agent that something strange was going at the DPD involving Oswald's wallet.
You have never accepted such evidence in this case when it lends itself to Oswald's guilt but suddenly it MUST be true.
I deal with evidence on a case by case basis. If somebody makes a claim for which there is no substantiation, I treat it with caution.
Here we have Bob Barrett saying there was a wallet and we have video of what's clearly a wallet at the Tippit scene. You have not a shred of proof that it wasn't a wallet. Even your so-called "logic" isn't logical at all. You just assume it wasn't a wallet, because you don't want it to be a wallet. The circumstantial case involving the wallet(s) is a plausible one, which makes it possibly and likely true.
What is hilarious is that LNs are always going on about looking at the entire circumstantial case as a whole. I'm doing exactly that and looking at the circumstantial case of the DPD manipulating evidence (such as the jacket and the revolver) it is most certainly not beyond belief that Bob Barrett's story is in fact true. Whether you like it or not.
Again, I've said we can likely never know with certainty. I have provided reasons that the circumstances lend themselves more to this being a notebook or citation book belonging to Tippit. And you obviously don't understand the distinction between a "wallet left at the crime scene" and a wallet of some witness who is present. The former (that is the first option Martin) would be evidence of the possible identity of the shooter. The police would have reasonable cause to believe that a wallet left at the crime scene was linked to the crime and the identity of the owner could be ascertained from the contents. That person would have become a suspect and his name and/description would have been broadcast over the police radio just as the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast. We know that didn't happen. That lends itself to this not being a wallet LEFT AT THE SCENE. If it is a wallet, it is the wallet of a witness standing off camera.
-
Again, I've said we can likely never know with certainty. I have provided reasons that the circumstances lend themselves more to this being a notebook or citation book belonging to Tippit. And you obviously don't understand the distinction between a "wallet left at the crime scene" and a wallet of some witness who is present. The former (that is the first option Martin) would be evidence of the possible identity of the shooter. The police would have reasonable cause to believe that a wallet left at the crime scene was linked to the crime and the identity of the owner could be ascertained from the contents. That person would have become a suspect and his name and/description would have been broadcast over the police radio just as the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast. We know that didn't happen. That lends itself to this not being a wallet LEFT AT THE SCENE. If it is a wallet, it is the wallet of a witness standing off camera.
Again, I've said we can likely never know with certainty.
In this case there is nothing that can be known with certainty. Not even who shot Kennedy and/or Tippit can be known with absolute certainty.
I have provided reasons that the circumstances lend themselves more to this being a notebook or citation book belonging to Tippit.
Except they don't
And you obviously don't understand the distinction between a "wallet left at the crime scene" and a wallet of some witness who is present.
Sure I do. In a wallet left the scene to point towards a suspect there would be a fake ID and in a wallet of some witness there wouldn't be.
You still keep ignoring that fact that FBI agent Bob Barrett told James Hosty that Captain Westbrook asked him at the Tippit scene if he know a man called Oswald or Hidell.
That information could only come from a wallet that contained both ID's and low and behold there is a video of police officers looking at a wallet.
I can understand why you wouldn't want to deal with this. It's easier to just call Bob Barrett a liar, as you have already implied he is.
The police would have reasonable cause to believe that a wallet left at the crime scene was linked to the crime and the identity of the owner could be ascertained from the contents. That person would have become a suspect and his name and/description would have been broadcast over the police radio just as the description of the JFK assassin was broadcast. We know that didn't happen. That lends itself to this not being a wallet LEFT AT THE SCENE.
Utter BS based on another one of your "they would have done this or that" fantasies. Your pathetic little argument is; "the police would have put Oswald's name on the police radio and since they didn't it means that there was no wallet left at the scene.
The circumstantial case for the switching of the two wallets is a strong one. Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. He later said on television it contained his ID, a drivers' license and a credit card. There is no report of any of the officers in the car that mentions a Hidell ID. Gus Rose arrived at the police station just before Oswald was brought in. Rose was given a wallet (the one now at the National Archives) by an unidentified officer who told him it was Oswald's wallet. It contained Oswald's ID as well as the fake Hidell ID. It did not contain a driver's license or credit card. I seem to remember that Paul Bentley was taken to hospital directly after his arrival at the police department and he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on him. Mitch Todd claimed that Bentley went first to the Homicide bureau and then to personnel division office tp write a report. Only then did he give the wallet to Baker, instead of turning it in to the evidence room. Either way, the wallet that Bentley carried with him could not have been the wallet that was given to Gus Rose, because he was given that as soon as Oswald was brought in.
That's the circumstantial case; Barrett said Westbrook was holding a wallet at the Tippit scene and asked him about Oswald and Hidell and Gus Rose was given a wallet containing an Oswald ID and a fake Hidell ID. Bentley never mentioned am Hidell ID in his report and none of the other officers did the same. Bentley's wallet couldn't have been given to Gus Rose because he kept it on his person while Rose was already talking to Oswald. It isn't difficult to do the math, but I'm pretty sure you will be struggling to understand it.
Now, for once, do what you constantly preach: look at the totallity of the circumstantial case instead of picking on low hanging fruit.
If it is a wallet, it is the wallet of a witness standing off camera.
HAHAHAHAHAHA... Wishful thinking. You have nothing. Not even "logic" or "common sense" to reach that conclusion.
This is way up there with the now infamous claim; "The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs is that it happened". Great stuff :D :D :D
-
Who said it was written somewhere? It may well be part of some guidelines but I have no intention to look for them, because your question is of no significance for the case we are discussing. Besides, I can just as easily ask you where it is written that cops are allowed and should mention names of suspects on the air.
You're the guy who claimed that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio." That implies policy, and if it's policy then it is written somewhere. Ergo, if you were correct, then you'd be able to point to such a policy. QED. Anyway, you've admitted that you don't know whether "it may well be part of some guidelines." That is, you have no idea whether your assertion is true, and admit that you made the whole thing up out of thin air. Good to know.
Besides, I can just as easily ask you where it is written that cops are allowed and should mention names of suspects on the air.
You're just trying to shift the burden of proof. You're the guy who chimed up claiming that they absolutely would not broadcast the name of a suspect. It's up to you to support your assertion.
-
You're the guy who claimed that "police never give names of potential suspects on the radio." That implies policy, and if it's policy then it is written somewhere. Ergo, if you were correct, then you'd be able to point to such a policy. QED. Anyway, you've admitted that you don't know whether "it may well be part of some guidelines." That is, you have no idea whether your assertion is true, and admit that you made the whole thing up out of thin air. Good to know.
You're just trying to shift the burden of proof. You're the guy who chimed up claiming that they absolutely would not broadcast the name of a suspect. It's up to you to support your assertion.
Why am I not surprised that you are no longer arguing about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car? Didn't like the way you destroyed and debunked your own argument that Baker possibly was the unidentified officer who gave the wallet to Gus Rose, did you?
Your claim that Westbrook wasn't holding a wallet at the Tippit scene simply because Oswald's and/or Hidell's name was not broadcast on police radio is ridiculous.
It was actually you who made the initial claim that DPD would have transmitted Oswald's and/or Hidell's name if they had found them in the wallet. That implies that DPD would do something like that as a matter of policy, because your claim loses all validity if it wasn't policy. So, can you show that the DPD as a matter of policy puts names of murder suspects on their radio system? If you can't, your entire argument falls apart.
-
There is this video on the youtube. It says that the wallet found wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and Westbrook and Bob Barret had an exchange about it. I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded. It's there on the video
-
There is this video on the youtube. It says that the wallet found wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and Westbrook and Bob Barret had an exchange about it. I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded. It's there on the video
Welcome to the forum.
I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded.
To answer your question; LNs will discard, deny and question anything that doesn't fit their narrative, and they will use insane arguments to do it. No matter how obvious the matter really is.
One of their head clowns came up with this beauty a while ago; "The evidence that Oswald came down the stairs of the TSBD after the last shot is that it happened".
-
There is this video on the youtube. It says that the wallet found wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene and Westbrook and Bob Barret had an exchange about it. I am not sure how such a strong evidence can be discarded. It's there on the video
Someone put a video on Youtube? I guess that solves the mystery. Again, there is no confirmation that this is even a wallet. The quality of the film does not allow us to reach that conclusion.
And there are many reasons for it not to have been a wallet left at the crime scene. Not the least of which is that we know the police did not radio the name and description of whomever left any such wallet. That person would have been a murder suspect. The police would have certainly informed fellow officers of the name and description of a cop killing murderer on the loose in the vicinity. Not to do so would have been grossly negligent. It is either Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some bystander. If some conspirator had left the wallet to frame Oswald or Oswald actually left the wallet, the police would certainly have reported that fact. There is no coherent explanation for the DPD - whom many CTers allege were framing Oswald - to have suppressed one of the most incriminatory pieces of evidence in the case to link Oswald to the Tippit murder beyond any doubt.
-
Someone put a video on Youtube? I guess that solves the mystery. Again, there is no confirmation that this is even a wallet. The quality of the film does not allow us to reach that conclusion.
And there are many reasons for it not to have been a wallet left at the crime scene. Not the least of which is that we know the police did not radio the name and description of whomever left any such wallet. That person would have been a murder suspect. The police would have certainly informed fellow officers of the name and description of a cop killing murderer on the loose in the vicinity. Not to do so would have been grossly negligent. It is either Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some bystander. If some conspirator had left the wallet to frame Oswald or Oswald actually left the wallet, the police would certainly have reported that fact. There is no coherent explanation for the DPD - whom many CTers allege were framing Oswald - to have suppressed one of the most incriminatory pieces of evidence in the case to link Oswald to the Tippit murder beyond any doubt.
True to form, the head clown replies exactly as expected.
Again, there is no confirmation that this is even a wallet. The quality of the film does not allow us to reach that conclusion.
Oh yes, there is confirmation. FBI agent Bob Barrett said it was a wallet. The fact that you don't like that doesn't negate what he said.
And there are many reasons for it not to have been a wallet left at the crime scene. Not the least of which is that we know the police did not radio the name and description of whomever left any such wallet. That person would have been a murder suspect.
First of all, there is a difference between transmitting a name and putting a description on the air. There was no way for Westbrook to be certain that the wallet did belong to the shooter, so putting out a name would be risky as it might color an innocent bystander as a potential cop killer. There were, however, plenty of eye-witnesses at the scene to obtain a description of the killer and put that on the air. But that didn't happen either. So, Westbrook may well have been grossly negligent, as you say. But that doesn't begin to prove that there wasn't a wallet at the scene.
It is either Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some bystander.
Utter speculation for which you have not a shred of evidence. For years LNs claimed it was Tippit's wallet, until Marie Tippit proved them wrong by confirming that she has her husband's wallet, which was given to her at the hospital. So, now it's the next best thing; "it's Tippit's citation book or some bystander's wallet. In other words, I'm just guessing what it could be!
You can keep repeating your guesses a thousand more times. It will never change the fact that you, unlike Bob Barrett, wasn't there and haven't got a clue what is was. Barret had no reason to lie to Hosty. You on the other hand have every reason to lie and you do it frequently. I'll take Bob Barrett's word over yours every day.
If some conspirator had left the wallet to frame Oswald or Oswald actually left the wallet, the police would certainly have reported that fact.
Really? And you know this, how? The fact is that Bentley took a wallet from Oswald in the car and that wasn't reported on the radio either.
There is no coherent explanation for the DPD - whom many CTers allege were framing Oswald - to have suppressed one of the most incriminatory pieces of evidence in the case to link Oswald to the Tippit murder beyond any doubt.
Just because you don't or want to understand it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You keep on ignoring the strong circumstantial case that clearly points at a switching of the wallets at the DPD HQ. The wallet that was actually surpressed was more than likely the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car. You know, the one that did not have a fake Hidell ID in it.
-
It’s hilarious that “Richard” is worrying about something being “grossly negligent” when just about everything the DPD did that weekend was grossly negligent.
-
True to form, the head clown replies exactly as expected.
Again, there is no confirmation that this is even a wallet. The quality of the film does not allow us to reach that conclusion.
Oh yes, there is confirmation. FBI agent Bob Barrett said it was a wallet. The fact that you don't like that doesn't negate what he said.
And there are many reasons for it not to have been a wallet left at the crime scene. Not the least of which is that we know the police did not radio the name and description of whomever left any such wallet. That person would have been a murder suspect.
First of all, there is a difference between transmitting a name and putting a description on the air. There was no way for Westbrook to be certain that the wallet did belong to the shooter, so putting out a name would be risky as it might color an innocent bystander as a potential cop killer. There were, however, plenty of eye-witnesses at the scene to obtain a description of the killer and put that on the air. But that didn't happen either. So, Westbrook may well have been grossly negligent, as you say. But that doesn't begin to prove that there wasn't a wallet at the scene.
It is either Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some bystander.
Utter speculation for which you have not a shred of evidence. For years LNs claimed it was Tippit's wallet, until Marie Tippit proved them wrong by confirming that she has her husband's wallet, which was given to her at the hospital. So, now it's the next best thing; "it's Tippit's citation book or some bystander's wallet. In other words, I'm just guessing what it could be!
You can keep repeating your guesses a thousand more times. It will never change the fact that you, unlike Bob Barrett, wasn't there and haven't got a clue what is was. Barret had no reason to lie to Hosty. You on the other hand have every reason to lie and you do it frequently. I'll take Bob Barrett's word over yours every day.
If some conspirator had left the wallet to frame Oswald or Oswald actually left the wallet, the police would certainly have reported that fact.
Really? And you know this, how? The fact is that Bentley took a wallet from Oswald in the car and that wasn't reported on the radio either.
There is no coherent explanation for the DPD - whom many CTers allege were framing Oswald - to have suppressed one of the most incriminatory pieces of evidence in the case to link Oswald to the Tippit murder beyond any doubt.
Just because you don't or want to understand it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You keep on ignoring the strong circumstantial case that clearly points at a switching of the wallets at the DPD HQ. The wallet that was actually surpressed was more than likely the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car. You know, the one that did not have a fake Hidell ID in it.
So many false premises and kooky logic. Not the least of which is that Martin suggests that the narrative here is that the conspirators (presumably the DPD since they possessed the wallet) decided to suppress the fact that they found Oswald's wallet AT THE TIPPIT MURDER scene for his arrest wallet. Good grief. Finding Oswald's wallet at the murder scene - whether left by Oswald himself or planted there to frame - would have been one of the most highly incriminating pieces of evidence in the case. Instead, for some inexplicable reason, we learn the fantasy conspirators who are framing him left and right decide to cover up the fact of discovering the wallet at the murder scene. HA HA HA. Incredible. It's breathtaking in its lack of logic and common sense. If the conspirators are going to suppress a wallet, it would be Oswald's arrest wallet. They control the evidence is this fantasy. But we are supposed to believe they are caught off guard by the fact that Oswald had his wallet when arrested. Something any child could have anticipated. So they suppress the wallet at the crime scene - which they conveniently stand around looking at in front of the cameras! Wow. Truly unreal. If only Roger Collins were here to cite us to something like another You Tube video.
-
So many false premises and kooky logic. Not the least of which is that Martin suggests that the narrative here is that the conspirators (presumably the DPD since they possessed the wallet) decided to suppress the fact that they found Oswald's wallet AT THE TIPPIT MURDER scene for his arrest wallet. Good grief. Finding Oswald's wallet at the murder scene - whether left by Oswald himself or planted there to frame - would have been one of the most highly incriminating pieces of evidence in the case. Instead, for some inexplicable reason, we learn the fantasy conspirators who are framing him left and right decide to cover up the fact of discovering the wallet at the murder scene. HA HA HA. Incredible. It's breathtaking in its lack of logic and common sense. If the conspirators are going to suppress a wallet, it would be Oswald's arrest wallet. They control the evidence is this fantasy. But we are supposed to believe they are caught off guard by the fact that Oswald had his wallet when arrested. Something any child could have anticipated. So they suppress the wallet at the crime scene - which they conveniently stand around looking at in front of the cameras! Wow. Truly unreal. If only Roger Collins were here to cite us to something like another You Tube video.
I have already stated previously that you don't understand or simply don't want to. So, nothing new here!
Finding Oswald's wallet at the murder scene - whether left by Oswald himself or planted there to frame - would have been one of the most highly incriminating pieces of evidence in the case.
Fool. The mere fact that Bentley took a wallet from Oswald in the car would be a red flag. It would raise questions.
Instead, for some inexplicable reason, we learn the fantasy conspirators who are framing him left and right decide to cover up the fact of discovering the wallet at the murder scene.
You really don't understand the most basic stuff, don't you? How would they explain finding Oswald's wallet (which happened to have a fake Hidell ID in it) at the murder scene, when it was already known that Bentley had taken a wallet from Oswald after his arrest. Are you really so stupid that you don't understand that the only explanation they could give is that (A) Oswald was carrying two wallets and (B) rather conveniently lost or dropped the most incriminating one at the murder scene. It would strain credulity.
Much easier to just switch the two wallets and make the one Bentley had disappear.
It's breathtaking in its lack of logic and common sense.
How would you know? You don't even know the meaning of those words.
If the conspirators are going to suppress a wallet, it would be Oswald's arrest wallet.
Which is most likely exactly what they did. They just couldn't undo the problem that it was already known that Bentley had taken a wallet from Oswald in the car. The guy even confirmed it on television. So, how do you claim that the wallet was "really found at the crime scene" without calling four DPD officers liars?
So they suppress the wallet at the crime scene - which they conveniently stand around looking at in front of the cameras! Wow.
Yeah, that was pretty stupid. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
So many false premises and kooky logic.
I fully understand that I will not get an answer from you (because you constantly say stuff you can not reasonably mean), but I'm going to ask it anyway; what premises were false?
Do you have the guts to answer a question for once or will I get another pathetic word salad?
Having said that, what is really kooky logic is that you have already admitted it could be a wallet and you have accepted that the video shows police officers looking at that wallet.
the wallet at the crime scene - which they conveniently stand around looking at in front of the cameras! Wow.
Yet, you ignore completely that FBI agent Bob Barrett, who was there at scene, confirmed that it was a wallet, Despite all that you still argue (and hilariously call it "logic") that it could be Tippit's citation book or the wallet of some bystander. You haven't got a shred of evidence for either possibility, you can't even certain which of the two it is, and you most certainly can't explain why it could a bystander's wallet but not Oswald. Now that's kooky!
-
"The witness" let it slip that Tippit resided on East Tenth... A DNA test of Tippit's alleged love child would confirm motive of her
mother's husband to shoot Tippit...
https://www.jdtippit.com/v-davis_nov.htm
"Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; we just saw a police car sitting on the side of the road.
Mr. BELIN. Where was the police car parked?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was parked between the hedge that marks the apartment house where he lives in and the house next door.
Mr. BELIN. Was it on your side of East 10th or the other side of the street?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was on our side, the same side that we lived on.
Mr. BELIN. Was it headed as you looked to the police car, towards your right or towards your left?
Mrs. DAVIS. Right.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any police officer in a police car when you first saw him?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir..."
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Witherspoon%20Johnnie%20Maxie/Item%2001.pdf
"...General Johnnie Maxie - Stephen Thompson, Jr. material including marriage license, divorce decrees,
employment and children.
HSCA synopsis of interviews with:
Johnnie Maxie Witherspoon
Austin Cook
Maebert Cook
As you wade through this stuff, you may come to the same conclusion I did, that Jack Moriarity did
a poor job not only of interviewing but following up on clues,
....
Coupling all this with the testimony of Virginia Davis and William Scoggins it would seem Johnnie
was living at the residence occupied by Ann McRaven on Tenth.
My sheet on Susan Marie Thompson might help explain the "frantic" phone call made by Tippit from
the Top Ten record store. Susan was born June 17, 1964 which would mean she was conceived
around September 17, 1963. Therefore, questions related to Johnnie's pregnancy would have been
resolve around November 17, 1963, five days prior to the assassination. Tippit could have called her
asking if she was pregnant and when she answered in the affirmative he raced over to the house.
I also have the Tippit autopsy photographs. They are negatives in 2 1/4" X 2 1/4" format. Once I
scrape up the money to have them converted into 8 X 10 glossy prints I will forward you a set.
Dave
p.s. Harold - Don't worry about the book. I will try to pick one up locally. We you have the
opportunity sending me an index would be fine.
But Witherspoon did not live on Tenth Street. In fact, she lived nowhere near the vicinity of Tenth and Patton. Not even close.
According to the 1964 Polk's Dallas City Directory, Witherspoon lived in the 2500 block of South Tyler, over thirty blocks from Tenth and Patton. Also, Witherspoon confirmed this in a 1983 interview with author Dale Myers.
-
a wallet which is excellent supportive evidence of Oswald being at the crime scene and then covered up is absolutely bonkers.
Who said it was covered up? It was already known that Bentley took a uninteresting wallet from Oswald in the car. The easist way to solve the problem is just switch wallets and make the Bentley one dissappear. It's isn't difficult to understand, yet you seem to be struggling. What else is new?
the original video clip shows exactly what happened, The Police Officer has no worries that his gun is pointed towards the detective but when the civilian reaches for his wallet
What makes you think it was a civilian reaching for the wallet and who says that it was that civilian's wallet? If you want to make up stuff, you need to do far better than this, John.
What would interest me is who is the officer in uniform holding the wallet? Could that be Croy?
What would interest me is who is the officer in uniform holding the wallet? Could that be Croy?
Bud Owens.
-
Bud Owens.
Thanks.
Do you know if Owens was ever asked about the wallet?
-
And the wallet is in fact open when the plain clothes man puts his finger on in. Are you blind or just a liar?
...the plain clothes man puts his finger on in.
Capt. George Doughty.
-
There are reasons from that clip to support the conclusion that this is Tippit's notebook or citation book. Look at how they are holding it. Vertically as though reading from a note page. In fact a page from the object appears to blow up at the very end from the wind. That suggests it has paper pages like a notebook or citation book rather than a wallet. In addition, they appear to be reading something from the object even tracing it with a finger. If they were taking down a witness ID, they would be writing that information down. But there is no indication that they are writing anything down from the object. I've never seen anyone asked by the police for an ID to hand their entire wallet to the policeman. Typically, they would remove the requested item (e.g. license) and hand it to them. I'm not saying this is conclusive of the issue, but it lends itself in that direction. What it is not, however, is a wallet left at the scene.
Great post, Richard. I agree.
I've always felt it kind of odd the way Doughty traces a line of something with his finger. While it still could be something one does to a particular item inside a wallet, it seems (in my opinion) that this "finger tracing" is an act one would more likely perform if it were some sort of note pad/citation booklet.
-
For years LNs claimed it was Tippit's wallet, until Marie Tippit proved them wrong by confirming that she has her husband's wallet, which was given to her at the hospital. So, now it's the next best thing; "it's Tippit's citation book or some bystander's wallet. In other words, I'm just guessing what it could be!
For years LNs claimed it was Tippit's wallet...
I don't believe this is true at all. Most didn't even know about Reiland's footage until very late in the game.
Can you cite for anyone ever claiming the wallet belonged to Tippit?
-
I don't believe this is true at all. Most didn't even know about Reiland's footage until very late in the game.
Can you cite for anyone ever claiming the wallet belonged to Tippit?
Can you cite for anyone ever claiming the wallet belonged to Tippit?
Not from memory. If you don't mind waiting, I'll gladly go through my files as soon as I have the time.
-
Great post, Richard. I agree.
I've always felt it kind of odd the way Doughty traces a line of something with his finger. While it still could be something one does to a particular item inside a wallet, it seems (in my opinion) that this "finger tracing" is an act one would more likely perform if it were some sort of note pad/citation booklet.
And how do you explain FBI Bob Barrett saying that it was a wallet?
-
"I'll tell you one thing, there was no billfold at the scene. If there was, there would have been too many people who would have seen it." -- Ted Callaway (interview with Dale Myers)
Callaway, Jez, Poe, Kinsley and Butler.... all tended to the body of Tippit and none of them saw a wallet.
-
What would interest me is who is the officer in uniform holding the wallet? Could that be Croy?
Bud Owens.
Thanks.
Do you know if Owens was ever asked about the wallet?
To the best of my knowledge, Owens never said a thing about any wallet. There's no record of him talking about a wallet.
-
And how do you explain FBI Bob Barrett saying that it was a wallet?
My opinion is that Barrett (who went to the Texas Theater and then straight to headquarters after Oswald's arrest) saw Oswald's arrest wallet while inside Westbrook's office back at headquarters. This is where the arrest wallet was for a while. Barrett said he went there to assist with the arrest report. I believe this is when Westbrook approached Barrett with the Oswald/Hidell names; back at headquarters.
I believe this for two reasons.
First, there are no reports filed by Westbrook or Barrett of any wallet being discussed at the scene at Tenth and Patton. Barrett filed a report that weekend, but never mentioned any wallet. My opinion is that if a wallet had been discussed at the scene with Oswald/Hidell identifications inside, it would have been mentioned in such a report.
Second, my opinion is that if a wallet was found near Tippit's body (or the patrol car), then the name(s) of the wallet's owner would have put out over the police radio to the dispatcher for the purposes of placing an APB on this person. Just like no wallet mentioned in any of the reports of those "involved", no APB was ever put out over the police air waves.
-
"I'll tell you one thing, there was no billfold at the scene. If there was, there would have been too many people who would have seen it." -- Ted Callaway (interview with Dale Myers)
Callaway, Jez, Poe, Kinsley and Butler.... all tended to the body of Tippit and none of them saw a wallet.
Callaway's personal opinion notwithstanding; as we discussed in our head to head a while ago, things were happening at high speed after the ambulance arrived. They were concentrating on Tippit and could have easily missed a wallet on the other side of the police car or, for that matter, a citation book.
Callaway, Jez, Poe, Kinsley and Butler.... all tended to the body of Tippit and none of them saw a wallet.
And why would they if it was left by the killer at the other side of the police car?
-
My opinion is that Barrett (who went to the Texas Theater and then straight to headquarters after Oswald's arrest) saw Oswald's arrest wallet while inside Westbrook's office back at headquarters. This is where the arrest wallet was for a while. Barrett said he went there to assist with the arrest report. I believe this is when Westbrook approached Barrett with the Oswald/Hidell names; back at headquarters.
I believe this for two reasons.
First, there are no reports filed by Westbrook or Barrett of any wallet being discussed at the scene at Tenth and Patton. Barrett filed a report that weekend, but never mentioned any wallet. My opinion is that if a wallet had been discussed at the scene with Oswald/Hidell identifications inside, it would have been mentioned in such a report.
Second, my opinion is that if a wallet was found near Tippit's body (or the patrol car), then the name(s) of the wallet's owner would have put out over the police radio to the dispatcher for the purposes of placing an APB on this person. Just like no wallet mentioned in any of the reports of those "involved", no APB was ever put out over the police air waves.
My opinion is that Barrett (who went to the Texas Theater and then straight to headquarters after Oswald's arrest) saw Oswald's arrest wallet while inside Westbrook's office back at headquarters.
Wasn't Barrett in the same car as Westbrook? So, why would Westbrook not show the wallet to Barrett until they got back to HQ?
This is where the arrest wallet was for a while.
What evidence do you have for this? My information is that Gus Rose had a day off and was called back in to talk to Oswald. He arrived just prior to Oswald being brought in and at that time he was given a wallet, by an unidentified officer, who told him it was Oswald's. That leaves no time for a wallet to be anywhere "for a while".
Barrett said he went there to assist with the arrest report.
When did Barrett say that? And since when would a FBI agent assist DPD officers in writing a arrest report?
I believe this is when Westbrook approached Barrett with the Oswald/Hidell names; back at headquarters.
Fair enough, but Barrett disagreed and said it happened at the Tippit scene. And how would Westbrook even know about a fake Hidell ID in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald?
First, there are no reports filed by Westbrook or Barrett of any wallet being discussed at the scene at Tenth and Patton.
True, but there is also no report about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald and there certainly isn't a report mentioning that the Bentley wallet contained the fake Hidell ID.
Barrett filed a report that weekend, but never mentioned any wallet.
Barrett may well not even have considered that information significant. That would perhaps have been different if he had known about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, but he probably didn't even know that at the time.
My opinion is that if a wallet had been discussed at the scene with Oswald/Hidell identifications inside, it would have been mentioned in such a report.
You would think so. But then, the same applies to the Bentley wallet. If that wallet had contained the fake Hidell ID it would have been mentioned in a report, right? But it wasn't.
Second, my opinion is that if a wallet was found near Tippit's body (or the patrol car), then the name(s) of the wallet's owner would have put out over the police radio to the dispatcher for the purposes of placing an APB on this person.
And possibly color an innocent bystander as a cop killer by name? Let's think about that for a moment. Just imagine that you are a witness to a murder and in all the confusion you drop your wallet. Would you consider it reasonable that your name is broadcast on police radio as the potential suspect? How would Westbrook even know if the wallet belonged to the killer? Also, there were plenty of witnesses at the scene who could describe the killer, but even a description wasn't broadcast. In any case, a name or description of a suspect not being transmitted doesn't even begin to prove that there wasn't a wallet.
-
My opinion is that Barrett (who went to the Texas Theater and then straight to headquarters after Oswald's arrest) saw Oswald's arrest wallet while inside Westbrook's office back at headquarters.
Wasn't Barrett in the same car as Westbrook? So, why would Westbrook not show the wallet to Barrett until they got back to HQ?
Because there was no wallet in Westbrook's possession to show to Barrett or anyone else. The wallet was in the Bentley/Hill/Carroll/Oswald car. Westbrook didn't see any such wallet until they arrived at headquarters.
-
Because there was no wallet in Westbrook's possession to show to Barrett or anyone else. The wallet was in the Bentley/Hill/Carroll/Oswald car. Westbrook didn't see any such wallet until they arrived at headquarters.
Because there was no wallet in Westbrook's possession to show to Barrett or anyone else.
Barrett disagreed, but what is your evidence that this is true?
The wallet was in the Bentley/Hill/Carroll/Oswald car.
But there is no mention of the fake Hidell ID in any report and Bentley did mention anything but a Oswald ID on television the next day.
Westbrook didn't see any such wallet until they arrived at headquarters.
How would Westbrook see a wallet Bentley brought in and passed to Gus Rose directly after Oswald was brought into the DPD HQ
-
"Certainly seem to be involved"? Based on what? A cop, probably abusing his authority, stopping three black men in a car. Of course they must be up to something, right? How pathetic.
BS like that happened in the 60's and is still happening now on a daily basis.
There is a car that has attracted police attention for some reason
That's called a traffic stop
and the officer at the scene suspects that they might be involved with it
Involved with what? What would be the reasonable suspicion?
Unit 72 is an Officer TL Cox, who is a member of the Patrol Division, and not the Traffic Division, so a simple traffic stop is pretty unlikely. In the continuing exchange between 72 and the dispatcher, we learn that the vehicle in question is registered to none of the three men Cox is asking about. There appears to be more than just a simple speeding ticket going on here. Of course, you'll to BS around this, like playing the race card as a get out of jail free card.
You can also consider the case of Charles Givens. At 1:46, Inspector Sawyer picks up his mic and transmits the following:
We have a man we would like to have you pass this up on to the CID to see if we can pick this man up. Charles Douglas Givens, G-I-VE-N-S. He's a colored male, thirty-seven, six foot three, a hundred sixty-five pounds. He has an ID number in the Sheriff's Department, 37954. He's a porter that worked on this floor up here. He has a police record and he left.
Certainly seems like some suspicion is being thrown Givens' way, and Sawyer has no problem publicly naming Givens on the radio.
Then again, you've already admitted that the notion that cops would never broadcast the name of a suspect was nothing more than an invention of your own device, so there's no point in continuing argument over the ghosts in your head.
Why wouldn't Westbrook do the same if he found identification in the mystery wallet?
Duh... Because he found it at a murder scene and could be linking an innocent white man to a serious crime.
This is simply another of your suppositions, again with some extra race card to attempt further obfuscation.
Bottom line is that you are trying to compare apples and oranges and it's lame.
No, the bottom line is that the departure point for this subthread was a baseless, unsupported, claim about the cops never broadcasting the name of a suspect.
And sure, they will use the TV news in a search for serious offenders, but only after there is no more reasonable doubt that the suspect is actually involved in the crime. That's not the case here. Westbrook could not make the determination at the scene that the wallet for certain belonged to Tippit's killer.
The "reasonable doubt" part doesn't come into play until the Shine-Ola hits the courtroom fan. The cops will feed the name of a "person of interest" (not even a suspect) to the media if they think it might generate a needed lead, usually because they can't find the PoI.
An FBI agent present at the scene of a crime somehow isn't a witness? Are you for real?
Barrett wasn't a witness to the crime, which is what I meant by "witnesses" in "witnesses and gawkers." Most people would at least consider that particular usage as a possibilty. Not you.
I don't know who else Westbrook asked, but I do know that Bob Barrett said he did ask him. I could argue that off duty officer Croy, who was the first to arrive at the scene, confirmed the presence of the wallet, but I don't want to do that simply because the only way Croy apparently confirmed it was in a text written on a photograph which now, for unclear reasons, can not be produced. So, we're stuck with Barrett said and you, rather dishonestly, as per usuals, are asking about more than one person because you know full well that we don't know who else (if anybody) was asked. All you want to do is argue that just because an FBI agent is the only one who came forward with the information it is somehow not valid because he's the only one. It's utterly pathetic and exactly what is to be expected from a LN.
Supposedly, Rookstool has a copy of a frame of the Reiland film where Croy wrote something about being the guy who "found Oswald's wallet." But Rookstool never quotes Croy as saying that Croy found any Oswald or Hidell ID. Rookstool certainly would have done so had Croy said it himself. Dale Myers interviewed Croy several years before Rookstool, and Myers says that Croy never mentioned anything about finding Oswald or Hidell IDs. So, did Croy know on 11/22 that the wallet was Oswald's? Or did Rookstool present his matching-wallet-flap spiel to an aged Croy who simply went with what he was presented, just like John Stringer did with John Canal's presentation.
FWIW, Ron Reiland said on 11/22/63 that the wallet was Tippit's "billfold". However, he's wrong about a number of details about the crime, so I can't see this statement being definitive in and of itself. Then again Reiland was at the scene filming the Police going through the billfold/wallet/notebook/coffeemaker, and his statement was recorded contemporaneously with the events.
I bring up the question of, did Westbrook ask anyone else (including and especially the radio dispatcher) about Oswald/Hidell because it's hard to believe that Westbrook would have asked only Barrett, given the situation. Further, if Westbrook didn't know whether the supposed "Oswald/Hidell" was a bystander, why would he not try to find out who this bystander might be? This of course would involve asking the bystanders at the scene if they were or knew Oswald or Hidell.
So many people? How many people were there? And who said that no one would have remembered? You seem to think that anybody who is present at a crime scene would automatically want to get involved by coming forward. Talk to some murder investigators for once and you'll find out quickly that's not the way it works in the real world.
In this photo, there are 28 people not including the uniformed officer:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184761/m1/1/zoom/?resolution=2&lat=1504.5&lon=750
There are probably additional people out of frame, especially at the rear of Car #10, and likely others on the North side of the street. So not too bad of a crowd.
Soon after the killing a number of self-appointed researchers began literally going door-to-door in the area around the crime scene looking for additional witnesses. Marguerite Oswald was the first, followed by the likes of Mark Lane, Vince Salandria, Shirley Martin, and George and Patricia Nash. From these effors, not a single witness turned up who mentioned an Oswald/Hidell wallet. Nor did they find anyone who remembered the Police asking about an Oswald or a Hidell.
You can "figure" all you want. Get back to me when you have something more solid than just your imagination. What you think the authorities should have done doesn't matter one iota.
That's a bit rich coming from a guy who arbitrarily invents police procedure and retroactively assigns it to the JFK case.
it would allow the DPD to quickly rule out the owner as a suspect.
How exactly do you rule out somebody as a suspect for a murder by doing a name/ID check?
You use the information gathered from the ID check to figure out where the person lives and works, then investigate from there. If the person of interest turns out to have a solid alibi, then you can rule them out. If the don't, then they stay in the suspect box. It's not that hard to figure out.
But I'll gladly tell you why both pieces of evidence (the wallet and the jacket) are tainted. There is no chain of custody for either. Both were apparently handled by officers that remained unidentified. Both pieces of evidence dissappeared out of sight for a while and then suddenly showed up at the police station. And for both items there is a problem with the description of it. A jacket first described several times as being white suddenly turned grey at the police station and it is marked by police officers who could not and did not hold it simply because they were not at the location where it was found. The wallet was initially described as containing a drivers' license and a credit card suddenly showed up at the police station without those two items in it but instead with a fake Hidell in it.
This is the Bentley/McDonald WFAA interview from November 23d:
Bentley: I asked for his name and he refused to give me his name. I removed his wallet from his back pocket and obtained his identification
and also asked him if he was still living at the Elsberry [Elspeth] address, and he says, "you find out for yourself."
Biffle: What kind of identification did he have?
Bentley: The card that I got this information from was a Dallas Public Library card. He had other identification such as a Driver's license, I believe, and, uh, hmm, credit cards and things like that.
"Such as," when followed by a list of things generally refers to hypothetical examples of a larger group. This is amplified by the use of "I believe" to disclaim certainty of a driver's license and having to stop and think ("Umm, uhh") before he continues onto the "credit cards" then finishing off with the vague generic "and things like that." The only item Bentley was definite about was the library card. The level of certainty goes downhill quickly after that. The "driver's license" could simply have been Oswald's DD1173, which did resemble a contemporary driver's license. Bentley's statement implies what he thought was important at the time: something that combined a name and an address. And it shows that he wasn't trying to generate a itemized, exact list of the contents of Oswald's wallet.
That being taken care of, Gus Rose's inability to remember exactly which DPD officer gave him the wallet does not "taint" or otherwise invalidate it as evidence.
As an LN apologist for the incompetent DPD you will no doubt refuse to accept that any of this is a problem because you have to to keep a flawed weak narrative alive.
Once again, Martin throws in his best adjectives as a substitute for presenting evidence or generating good arguments.
-
Jack Tatum said nothing about a wallet and thus is hardly relevant to the discussion. But I have no problem with Tatum believing or even claiming that he saw Oswald on 11/22/63. You just argued that if anybody else was asked by Westbrook about knowing Oswald and Hidell would have remembered and come forward. Now you are arguing that a guy who claimed, many years later, to have been a witness is to be believed. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
My point is that if Barrett should be believed because he said that something happened that nobody else explicitly denied, then Tatum should also be believed about his story that Oswald delivered a deliberate kill shot to Tippit's head. After all, nobody said, Oswald didn't deliver a last deliberate shot to Tippit's skull as Tippit lay in the street. Your attempt to talk around the problem is a back-handed admission that you see the problem with your own argument here.
Any way, eye-witness testimony is the weakest evidence there is. There are more witnesses who actually picked Oswald out of a (questionable) line up, but if Oswald physically couldn't have been at the scene when Tippit was shot, those "identifications" are pretty meaningless.
Since Barrett is an eyewitness, his story must then be counted among the weakest evidence there is, according to your own logic.
And there it is..... the classic LN claim that Bob Barrett probably misremembered, based on nothing more than wishful thinking. The problem is that you've got no reason to assume that Barrett misremembered. You are not treating Barrett's story carefully and with due suspicion. You are dismissing it outright simply because it doesn't fit the narrative you prefer.
On the other hand, you are presenting Tatum as a credible witness for whom doesn't apply what you claim applies to Connally, Audrey Bell, Paul O'Connor etc.
If you believe Tatum (as you seem to do) then why don't you believe Barrett? And, btw, let's not forget that Barrett told Hosty, in a private conversation, about the wallet long before it became public information. It was never intended for publication.
Back here in reality, I don't give Tatum's story faith or credit. Too many red flags, beginning with the whole Johnny-come-lately witness thing. The notion that I ever presented Tatum as a credible witness is simply your own presumption.
And the fact that Barrett's story was privately told before being publicized has no bearing as to whether it's true or not.
-
Another word salad typical for Mitch Todd and still nothing new added. It's just a repeat of the same arguments. I am not going to waste my time with a reply, except for this, which you conveniently ignored.
You claimed that Bentley still had the wallet when he went to the Homicide bureau and personnel division office to write reports before giving the wallet to TL Baker.
Gus Rose arrived at the police station shortly before Oswald was brought in. He was the first officer to talk to Oswald and he was given a wallet just before that.
There is no way that could have been the wallet that Bentley had!
This alone destroys most of your long winded arguments, which is, of course, exactly why you ignored it!
-
Supposedly, Rookstool has a copy of a frame of the Reiland film where Croy wrote something about being the guy who "found Oswald's wallet." But Rookstool never quotes Croy as saying that Croy found any Oswald or Hidell ID. Rookstool certainly would have done so had Croy said it himself. Dale Myers interviewed Croy several years before Rookstool, and Myers says that Croy never mentioned anything about finding Oswald or Hidell IDs. So, did Croy know on 11/22 that the wallet was Oswald's? Or did Rookstool present his matching-wallet-flap spiel to an aged Croy who simply went with what he was presented, just like John Stringer did with John Canal's presentation.
FWIW, Ron Reiland said on 11/22/63 that the wallet was Tippit's "billfold". However, he's wrong about a number of details about the crime, so I can't see this statement being definitive in and of itself. Then again Reiland was at the scene filming the Police going through the billfold/wallet/notebook/coffeemaker, and his statement was recorded contemporaneously with the events.
You do understand that you've confirmed that Croy and Reiland agreed with Barrett's statement that their was a wallet found at the Tippit scene, right?
The fact that Croy did not mention the Oswald and Hidell ID's doesn't negate that. Reiland saying that it was Tippit's wallet (which we know from Marie Tippit) it wasn't also does not mean there was no wallet.
So, now we have three people who confirm the presence of a wallet at the Tippit scene.
I bring up the question of, did Westbrook ask anyone else (including and especially the radio dispatcher) about Oswald/Hidell because it's hard to believe that Westbrook would have asked only Barrett, given the situation. Further, if Westbrook didn't know whether the supposed "Oswald/Hidell" was a bystander, why would he not try to find out who this bystander might be? This of course would involve asking the bystanders at the scene if they were or knew Oswald or Hidell.
Who says that Westbrook didn't ask the bystanders if somebody had lost a wallet? No need to name any names. In fact, it would be wise to withhold the names just in case somebody came forward. He could ask that person for his name and check with the content of the wallet.
As for informing the dispatcher, they didn't even bother to put a description of the killer on the radio, which would have been a lot more effective than broadcasting a name. So, that's a moot point.
-
Another word salad typical for Mitch Todd and still nothing new added. It's just a repeat of the same arguments. I am not going to waste my time with a reply, except for this, which you conveniently ignored.
You claimed that Bentley still had the wallet when he went to the Homicide bureau and personnel division office to write reports before giving the wallet to TL Baker.
Gus Rose arrived at the police station shortly before Oswald was brought in. He was the first officer to talk to Oswald and he was given a wallet just before that.
There is no way that could have been the wallet that Bentley had!
This alone destroys most of your long winded arguments, which is, of course, exactly why you ignored it!
This is what Bentley says about his return to Dallas City Hall:
"I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
"I then was told by Inspector Kockos to go to Baylor Hospital to receive treatment for the injured feet I received in making the arrest."
So, Bentley dropped off the ID when Oswald was dropped off in the Homicide office, and before following Hill and Carroll to the Personnel Office. I was a bit wrong in the exact sequence, but compare this to your original assertion that Bentley was whisked off to the hospital as soon as he arrived at City Hall.
Of course, this wrecks your arguments.
-
You do understand that you've confirmed that Croy and Reiland agreed with Barrett's statement that their was a wallet found at the Tippit scene, right?
The fact that Croy did not mention the Oswald and Hidell ID's doesn't negate that. Reiland saying that it was Tippit's wallet (which we know from Marie Tippit) it wasn't also does not mean there was no wallet.
So, now we have three people who confirm the presence of a wallet at the Tippit scene.
I didn't say it wasn't a wallet
Who says that Westbrook didn't ask the bystanders if somebody had lost a wallet? No need to name any names. In fact, it would be wise to withhold the names just in case somebody came forward. He could ask that person for his name and check with the content of the wallet.
As for informing the dispatcher, they didn't even bother to put a description of the killer on the radio, which would have been a lot more effective than broadcasting a name. So, that's a moot point.
This was broadcast at 1:34 on channel one:
221 [HW Summers]: Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair-complected. Wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.
-
This is what Bentley says about his return to Dallas City Hall:
"I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
"I then was told by Inspector Kockos to go to Baylor Hospital to receive treatment for the injured feet I received in making the arrest."
So, Bentley dropped off the ID when Oswald was dropped off in the Homicide office, and before following Hill and Carroll to the Personnel Office. I was a bit wrong in the exact sequence, but compare this to your original assertion that Bentley was whisked off to the hospital as soon as he arrived at City Hall.
Of course, this wrecks your arguments.
And where and when did Bentley say that?
Your first version of the sequence of events didn't work and now you come with a new version. What you don't produce is evidence for your claims. It's about time you show us what Bentley actually said.
I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker.
What identification would that be? The Oswald one or the fake Hidell ID?
I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
Where is the report that Bentley wrote in Westbrook's office?
Of course, this wrecks your arguments.
Let's just wait and see what you produce to substantiate your claims.
I didn't say it wasn't a wallet
So, were in agreement that it was indeed a wallet? Good... that's progress.
This was broadcast at 1:34 on channel one:
221 [HW Summers]: Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair-complected. Wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.
Was Summers anywhere near Westbrook when he called that in?
-
Dale Myers interviewed Croy several years before Rookstool, and Myers says that Croy never mentioned anything about finding Oswald or Hidell IDs. So, did Croy know on 11/22 that the wallet was Oswald's? Or did Rookstool present his matching-wallet-flap spiel to an aged Croy who simply went with what he was presented
Ah, the infamous “aged” excuse, like the one used for Bardwell Odum and CE399.
Or maybe Myers is just a lousy and/or dishonest interviewer.
-
Ah, the infamous “aged” excuse, like the one used for Bardwell Odum and CE399.
Or maybe Myers is just a lousy and/or dishonest interviewer.
Early in this thread the discussion was about the witnesses reports about seeing the killer leaving the scene of Tippit's murder. I knew that discussion would be derailed....because nobody wants to face the fact that Tippit's killer was using a different type revolver than the S&W allegedly taken from Lee Oswald in the theater.
-
And where and when did Bentley say that?
Your first version of the sequence of events didn't work and now you come with a new version. What you don't produce is evidence for your claims. It's about time you show us what Bentley actually said.
it's in CE2003. I've already quoted the appropriate part. Now, why don't you show us where you got the idea that "Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person"?????
I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker.
What identification would that be? The Oswald one or the fake Hidell ID?
He didn't specify. You don't understand what he wrote?
I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
Where is the report that Bentley wrote in Westbrook's office?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190315/?q=Oswald%20arrest%20report
Of course, this wrecks your arguments.
Let's just wait and see what you produce to substantiate your claims.
I'm the guy who's been substantiating them. Something that you've consistently failed to do.
So, were in agreement that it was indeed a wallet? Good... that's progress.
What are you talking about? I never claimed that it wasn't a wallet.
Was Summers anywhere near Westbrook when he called that in?
Why does it matter? You claimed that the Tippit suspect's description wasn't broadcast. I showed you where they did. Now you want to change the subject.
-
it's in CE2003. I've already quoted the appropriate part. Now, why don't you show us where you got the idea that "Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person"?????
He didn't specify. You don't understand what he wrote?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190315/?q=Oswald%20arrest%20report
I'm the guy who's been substantiating them. Something that you've consistently failed to do.
What are you talking about? I never claimed that it wasn't a wallet.
Why does it matter? You claimed that the Tippit suspect's description wasn't broadcast. I showed you where they did. Now you want to change the subject.
it's in CE2003.
Really? I just had a look at the index and I can't find Bentley's name in the list of affidavits. The document consists of 210 pages, so you are going to have to be a bit less evasive and tell me what page I need to look at.
I've already quoted the appropriate part.
Then it should be easy for you to point out where I can find that part, right? Or do you want me to just take your word for it?
Now, why don't you show us where you got the idea that "Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person"?????
Because that's how I remembered it. This is what I actually said;
Gus Rose was given a wallet, by an unidentified officer, who told him it was Oswald's, just like what happened with the jacket (Go figure!). And low and behold in that wallet there was this fake Hidell ID with Oswald's photo. IIRC Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person.
You do understand what "IIRC" means, right?
He didn't specify. You don't understand what he wrote?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth190315/?q=Oswald%20arrest%20report
Understand what? What you are showing me is a report by four DPD officers, including Bentley, about the arrest of Oswald, not only as Tippit's killer but also Kennedy's. It isn't worth the paper it's written on as it only provides opinions of officers who were in no position to make any such determination. The only thing it does tell us is that those four officers identified the man they arrested as Lee Harvey Oswald, because that's what's on the form. Now, this may be a bit complicated for you to understand, but if the wallet Bentley took from Oswald also contained a Hidell ID, why did they just write Oswald's name on the form and not mention the Hidell one at all?
What the document most certainly does not say is anything about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald and it's contents. And as for your casual remark "he didn't specify"; he absolutely didn't specify anything at all. If the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald contained a fake Hidell ID, don't you think that should have been mentioned in the report. Even more so, as it happens to be a fake ID in the same name that was used for ordering the rifle and the revolver. You are trying to make a big deal about the Tippit scene wallet, by suggesting it didn't contain the Oswald and Hidell ID just because those names were not broadcast on DPD radio, yet here you claim that the wallet Bentley took from Oswald contained the Hidell ID and you have no problem with that fake ID not being mentioned in any DPD report. Do you understand just how pathetic that is?
I'm the guy who's been substantiating them. Something that you've consistently failed to do.
So far, you haven't substantiated anything. It's the same game plan with you like before.... long winding arguments that go no where and playing games about where to find the evidence. I'm already getting tired of your games again.
Why does it matter? You claimed that the Tippit suspect's description wasn't broadcast. I showed you where they did. Now you want to change the subject.
Not at all. I looked into it and you are right. They did broadcast it. I missed that, which can happen when you write from memory, as I often do. Given the details provided, the source for the information was most likely Callaway.
Here is why it matters; by the time Summers made the broadcast they were already closing in on the library and Westbrook had already left the Tippit scene. How do I know this? Easy; it was Westbrook who was present at the parking lot where the jacket was found and the discovery of the jacket was reported to the dispatcher before Summers gave the description. But truth be told, the first description was broadcast by Patrolman Walker at around 1:22 PM. But even that was only two minutes before the discovery of the jacket was reported, so even at that time Westbrook wasn't at the Tippit scene anymore.
The fact is that Walker and/or Summers could not have gotten a name from Westbrook to broadcast. And that's exactly the point. You claimed that they would have broadcast the name of the suspect, but Westbrook was the only one who could have provided the name(s) and he wasn't there anymore. It's easy to understand why neither officer was ever in a position to broadcast a name, which makes your entire argument meaningless.
-
Two physical descriptions of the suspect were indeed put out over the police radio (and then repeated multiple times).
For the record, the first description put out over the police radio was made by Roy Walker who got his information from Warren Reynolds.
Howell Summers put out a description a little later. He got his description from Ted Callaway.
-
it's in CE2003.
Really? I just had a look at the index and I can't find Bentley's name in the list of affidavits. The document consists of 210 pages, so you are going to have to be a bit less evasive and tell me what page I need to look at.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0126b.htm (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0126b.htm)
-
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0126b.htm (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0126b.htm)
Thanks John
-
This is what Bentley says about his return to Dallas City Hall:
"I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
"I then was told by Inspector Kockos to go to Baylor Hospital to receive treatment for the injured feet I received in making the arrest."
So, Bentley dropped off the ID when Oswald was dropped off in the Homicide office, and before following Hill and Carroll to the Personnel Office. I was a bit wrong in the exact sequence, but compare this to your original assertion that Bentley was whisked off to the hospital as soon as he arrived at City Hall.
Of course, this wrecks your arguments.
Of course, this wrecks your arguments.
When you start from position of truth, the facts and evidence just flow together into a cohesive whole but unfortunately for the CT's they try to present alternatives which simply don't fit any logical narrative and thus their arguments are easily destroyed.
JohnM
-
When you start from position of truth, the facts and evidence just flow together into a cohesive whole but unfortunately for the CT's they try to present alternatives which simply don't fit any logical narrative and thus their arguments are easily destroyed.
JohnM
Hilarious and pathetic at the same time. Bentley's report, written on December 3, 1963, is way too vague to be of any value. The most important thing that stands out is that the man who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car still doesn't mention finding a fake Hidell ID in it, nearly two weeks after the event.
Also, Bentley claimed to have given "his identification" (whatever that means) to Baker and according to Mitch Todd it could well have been Baker who gave Gus Rose the wallet. There are only two problems with that. First there is no chain of custody (wow, now there's a shocker) and secondly, Rose and Baker worked together, so Rose would have recognized Baker as the person who gave him the wallet, but he didn't! He said some unidentified officer gave him the wallet.
Now, I understand full well this may be way over your head, John, but at least it shows you that you should read and try to understand the arguments before jumping in with one of your usual pathetic comments.
-
Hilarious and pathetic at the same time. Bentley's report, written on December 3, 1963, is way too vague to be of any value. The most important thing that stands out is that the man who took Oswald's wallet from him in the car still doesn't mention finding a fake Hidell ID in it, nearly two weeks after the event.
Also, Bentley claimed to have given "his identification" (whatever that means) to Baker and according to Mitch Todd it could well have been Baker who gave Gus Rose the wallet. There are only two problems with that. First there is no chain of custody (wow, now there's a shocker) and secondly, Rose and Baker worked together, so Rose would have recognized Baker as the person who gave him the wallet, but he didn't! He said some unidentified officer gave him the wallet.
Now, I understand full well this may be way over your head, John, but at least it shows you that you should read and try to understand the arguments before jumping in with one of your usual pathetic comments.
The very foundation of your theory which you still can't wrap your head around is that the Oswald wallet at the Tippit crime scene is powerful evidence but you are still trying to convince us that for some unfathomable reason known only to you, is that the Dallas Police who are your villains in this, decided to give Oswald a free pass. WOW!
JohnM
-
The very foundation of your theory which you still can't wrap your head around is that the Oswald wallet at the Tippit crime scene is powerful evidence but you are still trying to convince us that for some unfathomable reason known only to you, is that the Dallas Police who are your villains in this, decided to give Oswald a free pass. WOW!
JohnM
Another indication that your comprehension skills are severely lacking. I'm not trying to convince anybody that the DPD decided to give Oswald a free pass.
I'm saying that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that they switched the wallet taken from Oswald by Paul Bentley with the one found at the Tippit scene (with the Hidell ID in) and they did so for two reasons; first of all, it would link Oswald to the Hidell alias and secondly it would avoid questions being asked about Oswald having two wallets and conveniently dropping the one with the Hidell ID in it at the crime scene.
What you and your ilk seem unable to understand is that by the time Oswald arrived at the police station it was already known that Bentley had taken his wallet from him in the car. Now, how would it look if they later denied that and said it was found at the Tippit scene. Are you getting this, or do I need to explain it again?
-
Another indication that your comprehension skills are severely lacking. I'm not trying to convince anybody that the DPD decided to give Oswald a free pass.
I'm saying that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that they switched the wallet the wallet taken from Oswald by Paul Bentley with the one found at the Tippit scene (with the Hidell ID in) and they did so for two reasons; first of all it would like Oswald to the Hidell alias and secondly it would avoid questions being asked about Oswald having two wallets and conveniently dropping the one with the Hidell ID in it at the crime scene.
What you and your ilk seem unable to understand is that by the time Oswald arrived at the police station it was already known that Bentley had taken his wallet from him in the car. Now, how would it look if they later denied that and said it was found at the Tippit scene. Are you getting this, or do I need to explain it again?
Now, how would it look if they later denied that and said it was found at the Tippit scene.
This just gets more comical with every post.
Listen closely, as I alluded to in the other thread, Oswald having the Hidell identification would be used to show law enforcement that he wasn't Oswald and using your narrative, Oswald losing the Hidell wallet after showing Tippit is a very reasonable scenario which wouldn't need any denial.
Nobody would question Oswald having two wallets for two or more different pieces of identification.
C'mon Martin think clearly and try again and this time make a logical explanation that explains your hare-brained narrative and then we can examine why someone would even leave a second wallet??
JohnM
-
This just gets more comical with every post.
Listen closely, as I alluded to in the other thread, Oswald having the Hidell identification would be used to show law enforcement that he wasn't Oswald and using your narrative, Oswald losing the Hidell wallet after showing Tippit is a very reasonable scenario which wouldn't need any denial.
Nobody would question Oswald having two wallets for two or more different pieces of identification.
C'mon Martin think clearly and try again and this time make a logical explanation that explains your hare-brained narrative and then we can examine why someone would even leave a second wallet??
JohnM
Martin's "explanation" contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is mind boggling. Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene. What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene. Only an imbecile would ever suggest that the same police officers who they claim are otherwise framing Oswald would suppress the most important piece of evidence in the entire case to link him to the Tippit murder.
-
This just gets more comical with every post.
Listen closely, as I alluded to in the other thread, Oswald having the Hidell identification would be used to show law enforcement that he wasn't Oswald and using your narrative, Oswald losing the Hidell wallet after showing Tippit is a very reasonable scenario which wouldn't need any denial.
Nobody would question Oswald having two wallets for two or more different pieces of identification.
C'mon Martin think clearly and try again and this time make a logical explanation that explains your hare-brained narrative and then we can examine why someone would even leave a second wallet??
JohnM
Oswald losing the Hidell wallet after showing Tippit is a very reasonable scenario which wouldn't need any denial.
Hilarious! There is no evidence that Oswald (if it was him) showed Tippit anything. Besides, when Tippit spoke to his killer, Oswald's name wasn't even known to the officers in the field.
Nobody would question Oswald having two wallets for two or more different pieces of identification.
Really? Just how many people do you know that walk around with two wallets?
-
Martin's "explanation" contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is mind boggling. Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene. What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene. Only an imbecile would ever suggest that the same police officers who they claim are otherwise framing Oswald would suppress the most important piece of evidence in the entire case to link him to the Tippit murder.
Is comprehension problems a common thing amongst LNs?
I have never said that they suppressed the "most important piece of evidence" (i.e. the wallet found at the Tippit scene). I have in fact suggested the opposite.
Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene. What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.
Which is exactly what I have been saying all along, except for the part that they couldn't say they found it at the Tippit scene, because it was already known that Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. By switching the wallets (as thus supressing the Bentley one) they kept the fake Hidell ID in play and that was the most important part.
It's hilarious how LN clowns like you argue. On the one hand you claim there was no wallet belonging to Oswald at the Tippit scene. It was either a notebook or a wallet belonging to an innocent bystander. And then, on the other hand, you say if it was Oswald's wallet that was found at the Tippit scene it would be the "most important piece of evidence" against him, which implies that, in that scenario, it suddenly couldn't be that Oswald lost it as an innocent bystander.
As per usual you're all over the place and then have the audacity to call it "logic". It's pathetic!
-
Is comprehension problems a common thing amongst LNs?
I have never said that they suppressed the "most important piece of evidence" (i.e. the wallet found at the Tippit scene). I have in fact suggested the opposite.
Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene. What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.
Which is exactly what I have been saying all along, except for the part that they couldn't see they found it at the Tippit scene, because it was already known that Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. By switching the wallets (as thus supressing the Bentley one) they kept the fake Hidell ID in play and that was the most important part.
It's hilarious how LN clowns like you argue. On the one hand you claim there was no wallet belonging to Oswald at the Tippit scene. It was either a notebook or a wallet belonging to an innocent bystander. And then, on the other hand, you say if it was Oswald's wallet that was found at the Tippit scene it would be the "most important piece of evidence" against him, which implies that, in that scenario, it suddenly couldn't be that Oswald lost it as an innocent bystander.
As per usual you're all over the place and then have the audacity to call it "logic". It's pathetic!
Comedy gold. It must be a slow day in "Europe". Here we continue to play whack-a-mole. Martin from "Europe" contends that he is not claiming that the police suppressed anything! Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets. They couldn't lie about that for some reason while otherwise lying about just every other piece of evidence against Oswald according to Martin (from "Europe"). They drew the line at lying about wallets. HA HA HA HA HA. Unreal. I have never said it was Oswald's wallet found at the scene or any wallet. I explained as though to a simpleton why that is likely not the case. My discussion here was to highlight the astounding stupidity of YOUR claim that the police hid the fact that they - again in YOUR claim - found a wallet at the crime scene and then covered that up. In my opinion, it is not a wallet at all.
-
Comedy gold. It must be a slow day in "Europe". Here we continue to play whack-a-mole. Martin from "Europe" contends that he is not claiming that the police suppressed anything! Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets. They couldn't lie about that for some reason while otherwise lying about just every other piece of evidence against Oswald according to Martin (from "Europe"). They drew the line at lying about wallets. HA HA HA HA HA. Unreal. I have never said it was Oswald's wallet found at the scene or any wallet. I explained as though to a simpleton why that is likely not the case. My discussion here was to highlight the astounding stupidity of YOUR claim that the police hid the fact that they - again in YOUR claim - found a wallet at the crime scene and then covered that up. In my opinion, it is not a wallet at all.
Martin from "Europe" contends that he is not claiming that the police suppressed anything!
Thank you for exposing your dishonesty so clearly. This is what I actually said; "By switching the wallets "and thus supressing the Bentley one) they kept the fake Hidell ID in play"!
Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets.
That's not my narrative at all. When you need to misrepresent what I actually says it only shows that you have no counter arguments of any significance. What you don't understand (what else is new?) is that it doesn't matter if the found the wallet at the scene or on Oswald's person at the Texas Theater. He was wanted for Tippit's murder and in either case the most important piece of evidence, i.e. the fake Hidell ID, would connect Oswald to the rifle and revolver order forms.
I have never said it was Oswald's wallet found at the scene or any wallet. I explained as though to a simpleton why that is likely not the case.
And during that "explanation" you claimed that if a wallet was found at the Tippit scene, it would belong to an innocent bystander. Now you claim that this same wallet would be incriminatory evidence to link Oswald to the Tippit murder and out of the window goes the possibility of it belonging to an innocent bystander. I don't know what is worse, the fact that you present your dishonest arguments in the first place or that you don't seem able to understand what your own arguments mean.
But let's take this one step further. Let's assume for a moment that the Tippit wallet indeed doesn't exist, that still leaves the need for a credible explanation about how Paul Bentley never mentioned a fake Hidell ID being in the wallet he took from Oswald. Apart from the location where it was found, the presence of a fake Hidell ID (linking him to the rifle and revolver orders) would still be highly incriminatory evidence against Oswald, right? So, what happened there? Where did the fake Hidell ID come from and why did no officer who was in the car with Oswald mention the presence of this incriminatory piece of evidence ID in the wallet, not even in their reports on December 3, 1963? And why didn't the WC ask any of those officers about the discovery of that fake Hidell ID?
In my opinion, it is not a wallet at all.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in your opinion, it was a roll of toilet paper...
The most amusing thing is that you are arguing about a wallet you don't even believe exists. How's that for a fool's game?
-
The most amusing thing is that you are arguing about a wallet you don't even believe exists. How's that for a fool's game?
Again, I addressed the stupidity of YOUR CLAIM that a wallet was found at the scene. You are the one claiming it msut be a wallet and that is why I addressed the wallet discovery scenario. I can address the wallet that "I don't believe exists" because you claimed that is what was found at the scene. If someone claimed Bigfoot was real, I could address the likelihood of Bigfoot without accepting the premise that Bigfoot was real. Can you understand that simple distinction? Apparently not.
-
Again, I addressed the stupidity of YOUR CLAIM that a wallet was found at the scene. You are the one claiming it msut be a wallet and that is why I addressed the wallet discovery scenario. I can address the wallet that "I don't believe exists" because you claimed that is what was found at the scene. If someone claimed Bigfoot was real, I could address the likelihood of Bigfoot without accepting the premise that Bigfoot was real. Can you understand that simple distinction? Apparently not.
I addressed the stupidity of YOUR CLAIM that a wallet was found at the scene
Actually, you tried to "address" my claim by posting a bunch of self-serving, go nowhere opinions.... now that's really stupid
You are the one claiming it msut be a wallet and that is why I addressed the wallet discovery scenario.
I am not claiming anything of the kind. I am merely stating that circumstantial evidence points to it being a wallet.
I can address the wallet that "I don't believe exists" because you claimed that is what was found at the scene. If someone claimed Bigfoot was real, I could address the likelihood of Bigfoot without accepting the premise that Bigfoot was real. Can you understand that simple distinction? Apparently not.
So defensive and still unable to address the points I made in my last post. It's easy to deny the existance of something but when you do, you need to explain the consequences of that denial. It's pretty obvious you can't. You haven't got a clue how to explain where the fake Hidell came from. Your arguments and "reasoning" are superficial at best and go nowhere.
-
Really? Just how many people do you know that walk around with two wallets?
Well I don't know anyone that carries two completely different named pieces of identification and to top it off, the identification that isn't them, has their actual photograph?
But I'm guessing that you'll say in "Europe" it's just an every day occurrence! Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3LWm2S6/hidell.jpg)
JohnM
-
Martin's "explanation" contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is mind boggling. Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene. What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene. Only an imbecile would ever suggest that the same police officers who they claim are otherwise framing Oswald would suppress the most important piece of evidence in the entire case to link him to the Tippit murder.
Martin's "explanation" contains so many logical inconsistencies that it is mind boggling.
Agreed
Not the least of which is that if the DPD were manipulating the evidence and deciding which wallet to link to Oswald, they would obviously use the one found at the Tippit murder scene.
This was the first hole that Weidmann dug for himself, the very people who did the wallet swap were the very people that were attempting to set up Oswald.
What more incriminatory evidence could there be to link Oswald to the Tippit murder than claiming that he dropped his wallet at the scene.
And Weidmann's hole just gets deeper and deeper.
Only an imbecile would ever suggest that the same police officers who they claim are otherwise framing Oswald would suppress the most important piece of evidence in the entire case to link him to the Tippit murder.
"Imbecile" is being kind.
JohnM
-
Comedy gold. It must be a slow day in "Europe". Here we continue to play whack-a-mole. Martin from "Europe" contends that he is not claiming that the police suppressed anything! Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets. They couldn't lie about that for some reason while otherwise lying about just every other piece of evidence against Oswald according to Martin (from "Europe"). They drew the line at lying about wallets. HA HA HA HA HA. Unreal. I have never said it was Oswald's wallet found at the scene or any wallet. I explained as though to a simpleton why that is likely not the case. My discussion here was to highlight the astounding stupidity of YOUR claim that the police hid the fact that they - again in YOUR claim - found a wallet at the crime scene and then covered that up. In my opinion, it is not a wallet at all.
Keep that in mind in trying to follow his looney narrative that the police were involved in framing Oswald for the murder of Tippit, found a wallet at the crime, and when given the opportunity to connect a wallet found at the crime with the person they were trying to frame instead decided to just go with the wallet found on Oswald because they had TWO wallets.
And this is the very reason that Conspiracy Kooks won't give us an alternative narrative on what happened that day because out of all their conspiratorial allegations this is just one and Weidmann can't even produce a logical scenario that makes sense from this solitary contention and when you add the rest of their massive claims it just becomes a jumbled mess of contradictions, so most of them simply stick to playing Oswald's defence "lawyers" with no hope of ever solving the case.
Because "the wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody." Dammit!
JohnM
-
Well I don't know anyone that carries two completely different named pieces of identification and to top it off, the identification that isn't them, has their actual photograph?
But I'm guessing that you'll say in "Europe" it's just an every day occurrence! Thumb1:
JohnM
So, you can't or don't want to answer my question. It's duly noted.
-
Agreed
This was the first hole that Weidmann dug for himself, the very people who did the wallet swap were the very people that were attempting to set up Oswald.
And Weidmann's hole just gets deeper and deeper.
"Imbecile" is being kind.
JohnM
Still nothing of any value to say. You never seem to be able to get beyond superficial in any way. Why is that?
When you can't attack the information, attack the messenger. Pathetic!
When Johnny starts to ridicule and attack people that don't agree with him, he is actually confirming he has no significant contribution to make because the parrot can't find the information he needs in the official narrative. When that happens the geek with the gifs comes out.
-
And this is the very reason that Conspiracy Kooks won't give us an alternative narrative on what happened that day because out of all their conspiratorial allegations this is just one and Weidmann can't even produce a logical scenario that makes sense from this solitary contention and when you add the rest of their massive claims it just becomes a jumbled mess of contradictions, so most of them simply stick to playing Oswald's defence "lawyers" with no hope of ever solving the case.
Because "the wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody." Dammit!
JohnM
Whining Johnny strikes again. Unwilling or unable to listen to or understand any argument made. Incapable of responding to anything that doesn't fit the official narrative and utterly unable to answer even the easiest questions. Throw a coin in the machine and Johnny will start complaining about those horrible people who do not believe and see right through his favorite fairytale.
His last four posts on this forum are all about attacking people who don't agree with him. He surely is a valuable poster, in his own mind, of course :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
In this particular case, we were discussing before Mytton jumped in, Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. He did not mention finding a fake Hidell ID, nor did any of the three other officers in the car. Even as late as December 3, 1963, when Bentley wrote his report, there was no mention of him finding a Hidell ID and the WC never even called him to testify. Clearly he wasn't important enough. Allegedly Bentley gave the "information" to Baker, but the WC, who did call Baker did not ask him either about what that "information" was. With all that in mind, Gus Rose said that he started talking to Oswald directly after he had been brought in and that somebody (he could not identify) gave him a wallet which that person claimed belonged to Oswald. It was in that wallet where Rose found the fake Hidell ID.
So, the question that John Mytton and Richard Smith can't answer is; if the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, where did it come from? The simpelton's answer will probably be that the fake Hidell ID was in the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald after all, but there is no evidence for that. Even worse, according to Richard Smith that fake ID was highly incriminating because it tied Oswald to the orders for the rifle and the revolver. So, are we really to believe that Bentley and the other three officers in the car simply "forgot" to mention this vital piece of evidence?
Let's just find out if Mytton has the balls to tackle this issue head on or if he will run and hide behind a gif as usual......
-
it's in CE2003.
Really? I just had a look at the index and I can't find Bentley's name in the list of affidavits. The document consists of 210 pages, so you are going to have to be a bit less evasive and tell me what page I need to look at.
I've already quoted the appropriate part.
Then it should be easy for you to point out where I can find that part, right? Or do you want me to just take your word for it?
Now, why don't you show us where you got the idea that "Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person"?????
Because that's how I remembered it. This is what I actually said;
You do understand what "IIRC" means, right?
Understand what? What you are showing me is a report by four DPD officers, including Bentley, about the arrest of Oswald, not only as Tippit's killer but also Kennedy's. It isn't worth the paper it's written on as it only provides opinions of officers who were in no position to make any such determination. The only thing it does tell us is that those four officers identified the man they arrested as Lee Harvey Oswald, because that's what's on the form. Now, this may be a bit complicated for you to understand, but if the wallet Bentley took from Oswald also contained a Hidell ID, why did they just write Oswald's name on the form and not mention the Hidell one at all?
What the document most certainly does not say is anything about the wallet Bentley took from Oswald and it's contents. And as for your casual remark "he didn't specify"; he absolutely didn't specify anything at all. If the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald contained a fake Hidell ID, don't you think that should have been mentioned in the report. Even more so, as it happens to be a fake ID in the same name that was used for ordering the rifle and the revolver. You are trying to make a big deal about the Tippit scene wallet, by suggesting it didn't contain the Oswald and Hidell ID just because those names were not broadcast on DPD radio, yet here you claim that the wallet Bentley took from Oswald contained the Hidell ID and you have no problem with that fake ID not being mentioned in any DPD report. Do you understand just how pathetic that is?
I'm the guy who's been substantiating them. Something that you've consistently failed to do.
So far, you haven't substantiated anything. It's the same game plan with you like before.... long winding arguments that go no where and playing games about where to find the evidence. I'm already getting tired of your games again.
Why does it matter? You claimed that the Tippit suspect's description wasn't broadcast. I showed you where they did. Now you want to change the subject.
Not at all. I looked into it and you are right. They did broadcast it. I missed that, which can happen when you write from memory, as I often do. Given the details provided, the source for the information was most likely Callaway.
Here is why it matters; by the time Summers made the broadcast they were already closing in on the library and Westbrook had already left the Tippit scene. How do I know this? Easy; it was Westbrook who was present at the parking lot where the jacket was found and the discovery of the jacket was reported to the dispatcher before Summers gave the description. But truth be told, the first description was broadcast by Patrolman Walker at around 1:22 PM. But even that was only two minutes before the discovery of the jacket was reported, so even at that time Westbrook wasn't at the Tippit scene anymore.
The fact is that Walker and/or Summers could not have gotten a name from Westbrook to broadcast. And that's exactly the point. You claimed that they would have broadcast the name of the suspect, but Westbrook was the only one who could have provided the name(s) and he wasn't there anymore. It's easy to understand why neither officer was ever in a position to broadcast a name, which makes your entire argument meaningless.
Really? I just had a look at the index and I can't find Bentley's name in the list of affidavits. The document consists of 210 pages, so you are going to have to be a bit less evasive and tell me what page I need to look at.
Then it should be easy for you to point out where I can find that part, right? Or do you want me to just take your word for it?
Starting from scratch, it took me less than 2 minutes to get to Bentley's report. I see that Iacoletti seems found it with little trouble as well. You could have done so yourself. Lazybones.
I don't see any residual complaints from you about what I'd quoted from Bentley's report. I guess you found that I quoted it correctly.
You do understand what "IIRC" means, right?
That I do. But I'm wondering what you're actually trying to remember. So what are the sources for your faulty memory?
So far, you haven't substantiated anything. It's the same game plan with you like before.... long winding arguments that go no where and playing games about where to find the evidence. I'm already getting tired of your games again.
I substantiated that you were wrong with Bentley's activities that afternoon, for one. How soon you forget!
The fact is that Walker and/or Summers could not have gotten a name from Westbrook to broadcast. And that's exactly the point. You claimed that they would have broadcast the name of the suspect, but Westbrook was the only one who could have provided the name(s) and he wasn't there anymore. It's easy to understand why neither officer was ever in a position to broadcast a name, which makes your entire argument meaningless.
Your "point" makes no sense at all. Who claimed that only Summers or Walker could have broadcast Oswald's or Hidell's name? I never did. Nor was Westbrook, Croy or anyone else prohibited from broadcasting that information --assuming that they had it in the first place-- once it was discovered.
yet here you claim that the wallet Bentley took from Oswald contained the Hidell ID and you have no problem with that fake ID not being mentioned in any DPD report. Do you understand just how pathetic that is?
So, from "in any DPD report" means that you have read all of the DPD documentation regarding Oswald's arrest? I'm pretty sure you haven't, otherwise you'd already have known about Bentley's duty report. You also presume that the wallet, Oswald ID, and/or Hidell ID would must have been mentioned in the arrest report or the duty report had Bentley had it. But you have presented no reason to justify this presumption.
-
Really? I just had a look at the index and I can't find Bentley's name in the list of affidavits. The document consists of 210 pages, so you are going to have to be a bit less evasive and tell me what page I need to look at.
Then it should be easy for you to point out where I can find that part, right? Or do you want me to just take your word for it?
Starting from scratch, it took me less than 2 minutes to get to Bentley's report. I see that Iacoletti seems found it with little trouble as well. You could have done so yourself. Lazybones.
I don't see any residual complaints from you about what I'd quoted from Bentley's report. I guess you found that I quoted it correctly.
You do understand what "IIRC" means, right?
That I do. But I'm wondering what you're actually trying to remember. So what are the sources for your faulty memory?
So far, you haven't substantiated anything. It's the same game plan with you like before.... long winding arguments that go no where and playing games about where to find the evidence. I'm already getting tired of your games again.
I substantiated that you were wrong with Bentley's activities that afternoon, for one. How soon you forget!
The fact is that Walker and/or Summers could not have gotten a name from Westbrook to broadcast. And that's exactly the point. You claimed that they would have broadcast the name of the suspect, but Westbrook was the only one who could have provided the name(s) and he wasn't there anymore. It's easy to understand why neither officer was ever in a position to broadcast a name, which makes your entire argument meaningless.
Your "point" makes no sense at all. Who claimed that only Summers or Walker could have broadcast Oswald's or Hidell's name? I never did. Nor was Westbrook, Croy or anyone else prohibited from broadcasting that information --assuming that they had it in the first place-- once it was discovered.
Starting from scratch, it took me less than 2 minutes to get to Bentley's report. I see that Iacoletti seems found it with little trouble as well. You could have done so yourself. Lazybones.
I see no reason for why I should look up a document you claim to be quoting from.
I don't see any residual complaints from you about what I'd quoted from Bentley's report. I guess you found that I quoted it correctly.
Then, perhaps, you should guess again. Quoting a couple of lines correctly from an extremely vague report, written nearly two weeks after the event, is not automatically the same as proving your claim.
I substantiated that you were wrong with Bentley's activities that afternoon, for one.
No you haven't. I said, from memory, that Bentley went from police HQ to the hospital, which is exactly what he did. You just added some details about what happened between his arrival at HQ and departure. You actually gave me two versions and neither one, not even the one in Bentley's report of December 3, 1963, supports your claim about the wallet.
Btw, where in his report of December 3, 1963 (when the name Hidell was already well known) did Bently write he found the fake Hidell ID in the wallet he took from Oswald? I couldn't find it, but who knows perhaps you can....
-
Whining Johnny strikes again. Unwilling or unable to listen to or understand any argument made. Incapable of responding to anything that doesn't fit the official narrative and utterly unable to answer even the easiest questions. Throw a coin in the machine and Johnny will start complaining about those horrible people who do not believe and see right through his favorite fairytale.
His last four posts on this forum are all about attacking people who don't agree with him. He surely is a valuable poster, in his own mind, of course :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
In this particular case, we were discussing before Mytton jumped in, Paul Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. He did not mention finding a fake Hidell ID, nor did any of the three other officers in the car. Even as late as December 3, 1963, when Bentley wrote his report, there was no mention of him finding a Hidell ID and the WC never even called him to testify. Clearly he wasn't important enough. Allegedly Bentley gave the "information" to Baker, but the WC, who did call Baker did not ask him either about what that "information" was. With all that in mind, Gus Rose said that he started talking to Oswald directly after he had been brought in and that somebody (he could not identify) gave him a wallet which that person claimed belonged to Oswald. It was in that wallet where Rose found the fake Hidell ID.
So, the question that John Mytton and Richard Smith can't answer is; if the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, where did it come from? The simpelton's answer will probably be that the fake Hidell ID was in the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald after all, but there is no evidence for that. Even worse, according to Richard Smith that fake ID was highly incriminating because it tied Oswald to the orders for the rifle and the revolver. So, are we really to believe that Bentley and the other three officers in the car simply "forgot" to mention this vital piece of evidence?
Let's just find out if Mytton has the balls to tackle this issue head on or if he will run and hide behind a gif as usual......
Do you believe the wallet Bentley removed from Oswald's back pocket (while in the car from the theater to headquarters) contained credit cards?
-
Do you believe the wallet Bentley removed from Oswald's back pocket (while in the car from the theater to headquarters) contained credit cards?
Is this your roundabout way of saying that Bentley isn't a reliable source? All I take away from the television interview is that he said he went through the wallet and he found Oswald's ID and the "usual things like a credit card and a driver's license". The credit card and driver's license thing seems unlikely, as it doesn't really fit with the story we've been told about Oswald, but anything is possible, I guess. It doesn't really matter what I believe or not. Far more important is what Bentley did not say, not on television and not in his December 3rd report. He never says that he found an ID card with the name Hidell in the wallet he took from Oswald. That's remarkable to say the least, given the fact that it is such a vital piece of evidence for the official narrative.
-
Is this your roundabout way of saying that Bentley isn't a reliable source? All I take away from the television interview is that he said he went through the wallet and he found Oswald's ID and the "usual things like a credit card and a driver's license". The credit card and driver's license thing seems unlikely, as it doesn't really fit with the story we've been told about Oswald, but anything is possible, I guess. It doesn't really matter what I believe or not. Far more important is what Bentley did not say, not on television and not in his December 3rd report. He never says that he found an ID card with the name Hidell in the wallet he took from Oswald. That's remarkable to say the least, given the fact that it is such a vital piece of evidence for the official narrative.
I am saying Bentley is not to be relied upon, regarding the contents of the wallet. This is very clear and evident.
I'm not paying super close attention to this thread, so forgive me. Are you saying that no wallet was taken from Oswald during the car ride from the theater to headquarters or are you saying that one was taken from Oswald during this car ride but that it did not contain Hidell identification?
-
Starting from scratch, it took me less than 2 minutes to get to Bentley's report. I see that Iacoletti seems found it with little trouble as well. You could have done so yourself. Lazybones.
I see no reason for why I should look up a document you claim to be quoting from.
I don't see any residual complaints from you about what I'd quoted from Bentley's report. I guess you found that I quoted it correctly.
Then, perhaps, you should guess again. Quoting a couple of lines correctly from an extremely vague report, written nearly two weeks after the event, is not automatically the same as proving your claim.
I substantiated that you were wrong with Bentley's activities that afternoon, for one.
No you haven't. I said, from memory, that Bentley went from police HQ to the hospital, which is exactly what he did. You just added some details about what happened between his arrival at HQ and departure. You actually gave me two versions and neither one, not even the one in Bentley's report of December 3, 1963, supports your claim about the wallet.
Btw, where in his report of December 3, 1963 (when the name Hidell was already well known) did Bently write he found the fake Hidell ID in the wallet he took from Oswald? I couldn't find it, but who knows perhaps you can....
I see no reason for why I should look up a document you claim to be quoting from.
I gave you the document it came from. CE2003.
I said, from memory, that Bentley went from police HQ to the hospital, which is exactly what he did.
You said a lot more than what you now claim. This is exactly what you said:
"IIRC Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person."
What I noted was that in Bentley's own account, he accompanied Walker, Oswald, Carrol, and Hill to Fritz' office and turned over the wallet there. Bentley then continued with Hill's party to the Personnel office to write the arrest report. Only after completing that report did Bentley go to the hospital. I'll take his word for it over your own faulty memories of some unnamed source.
Btw, where in his report of December 3, 1963 (when the name Hidell was already well known) did Bently write he found the fake Hidell ID in the wallet he took from Oswald? I couldn't find it, but who knows perhaps you can....
Why would he be expected to provide that in the report? It is only your own presumption that he would have.
-
Do you believe the wallet Bentley removed from Oswald's back pocket (while in the car from the theater to headquarters) contained credit cards?
Hi Bill, Hope you are well. I like your Ed Forum posts and trying to keep those paranoid loonies somewhat honest, I was just over there and they now have a Hidell ID thread and Griffith is already claiming that there was two wallets with the Hidell ID contained within, but how does that fit in any narrative?, did they not expect Oswald to be carrying a wallet? And why suppress the wallet at the Tippit crime scene when their whole plan was to frame Oswald? The lack of critical thinking skills is on full display and is quite the embarrassment.
Getting back to your question, of course there was no credit cards or drivers licence or things like that in Oswald's wallet, the reason that they looked at the wallet in the Police car in the first place was just to find Oswald's name and when they found the library card with Oswald's name, there was no need for an extensive search of anything else. Then when they got back to the station a more thorough search revealed the Hidell ID, it's not rocket science.
The first mention of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit crime scene was an off hand comment made decades later but these CT's are like ravenous dogs who will latch onto these factoid anomalies and then create new scenarios which obviously don't fit any overall structure, but logic be buggered when it gets in the way of some massive undefinable conspiracy.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/11/article-0-193E760B000005DC-816_634x422.jpg)
Anyway have a great day and don't be a stranger!
JohnM
-
I am saying Bentley is not to be relied upon, regarding the contents of the wallet. This is very clear and evident.
I'm not paying super close attention to this thread, so forgive me. Are you saying that no wallet was taken from Oswald during the car ride from the theater to headquarters or are you saying that one was taken from Oswald during this car ride but that it did not contain Hidell identification?
I am saying Bentley is not to be relied upon, regarding the contents of the wallet. This is very clear and evident.
And another law enforcement officer gets thrown under the bus......
But tell it to Mitch Todd because he seems desperate to rely on what Bentley wrote in his extremely vague report. Thumb1:
Are you saying that no wallet was taken from Oswald during the car ride from the theater to headquarters
No. I have no doubt that Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. Three more officers have confirmed this.
or are you saying that one was taken from Oswald during this car ride but that it did not contain Hidell identification?
There is no evidence to show that a Hidell identification was in that wallet. None of the four officers that were in the car mention a Hidell ID despite it being a vital piece of evidence. Or is that just more police incompetence, according to you?
-
I see no reason for why I should look up a document you claim to be quoting from.
I gave you the document it came from. CE2003.
I said, from memory, that Bentley went from police HQ to the hospital, which is exactly what he did.
You said a lot more than what you now claim. This is exactly what you said:
"IIRC Bentley was injured during the arrest and was taken to hospital as soon as the car arrived at City Hall. When he came back from hospital he still had the wallet he took from Oswald on his person."
What I noted was that in Bentley's own account, he accompanied Walker, Oswald, Carrol, and Hill to Fritz' office and turned over the wallet there. Bentley then continued with Hill's party to the Personnel office to write the arrest report. Only after completing that report did Bentley go to the hospital. I'll take his word for it over your own faulty memories of some unnamed source.
Btw, where in his report of December 3, 1963 (when the name Hidell was already well known) did Bently write he found the fake Hidell ID in the wallet he took from Oswald? I couldn't find it, but who knows perhaps you can....
Why would he be expected to provide that in the report? It is only your own presumption that he would have.
What I noted was that in Bentley's own account, he accompanied Walker, Oswald, Carrol, and Hill to Fritz' office and turned over the wallet there.
Bentley didn't say that. In his report he just said he turned over "his information" (whatever that means) to Baker. You just assume he was talking about the wallet. That's beyond weak!
And even worse, as Gus Rose started talking to Oswald as soon as he was brought in and was given a wallet (somebody said was Oswald's) none of this contradicts the possibility that the wallets were switched and that Rose was given the Tippit scene wallet, which we know from FBI agent Barrett did contain a Hidell ID.
I'll take his word for it
Apparently, Bill Brown doesn't take his word at all. But beyond that, you are taking his word about what?
Why would he be expected to provide that in the report? It is only your own presumption that he would have.
So the officer who found a vital and incriminating piece of evidence doesn't have to report that and doesn't have to be part of the chain of custody? Is that what you are foolishly trying to say?
You do understand that before they went to Fritz's office where you think Bentley turned over the wallet, they had already left Oswald with Rose and he (according to his testimony) had already been given a wallet by then. So even your silly timeline doesn't work!
-
I am saying Bentley is not to be relied upon, regarding the contents of the wallet. This is very clear and evident.
And another law enforcement officer gets thrown under the bus......
But tell it to Mitch Todd because he seems desperate to rely on what Bentley wrote in his extremely vague report. Thumb1:
Are you saying that no wallet was taken from Oswald during the car ride from the theater to headquarters
No. I have no doubt that Bentley took Oswald's wallet from him in the car. Three more officers have confirmed this.
or are you saying that one was taken from Oswald during this car ride but that it did not contain Hidell identification?
There is no evidence to show that a Hidell identification was in that wallet. None of the four officers that were in the car mention a Hidell ID despite it being a vital piece of evidence. Or is that just more police incompetence, according to you?
There is no evidence to show that a Hidell identification was in that wallet. None of the four officers that were in the car mention a Hidell ID despite it being a vital piece of evidence.
Incorrect.
Gerald Hill stated that the wallet contained identification in the form of a library card in the name of Oswald. Hill also stated that the wallet contained identification matching the name that Oswald used to purchase the rifle under (Hidell).
-
Incorrect.
Gerald Hill stated that the wallet contained identification in the form of a library card in the name of Oswald. Hill also stated that the wallet contained identification matching the name that Oswald used to purchase the rifle under (Hidell).
Thanks Bill
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.
JohnM
-
Hi Bill, Hope you are well. I like your Ed Forum posts and trying to keep those paranoid loonies somewhat honest, I was just over there and they now have a Hidell ID thread and Griffith is already claiming that there was two wallets with the Hidell ID contained within, but how does that fit in any narrative?, did they not expect Oswald to be carrying a wallet? And why suppress the wallet at the Tippit crime scene when their whole plan was to frame Oswald? The lack of critical thinking skills is on full display and is quite the embarrassment.
Getting back to your question, of course there was no credit cards or drivers licence or things like that in Oswald's wallet, the reason that they looked at the wallet in the Police car in the first place was just to find Oswald's name and when they found the library card with Oswald's name, there was no need for an extensive search of anything else. Then when they got back to the station a more thorough search revealed the Hidell ID, it's not rocket science.
The first mention of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit crime scene was an off hand comment made decades later but these CT's are like ravenous dogs who will latch onto these factoid anomalies and then create new scenarios which obviously don't fit any overall structure, but logic be buggered when it gets in the way of some massive undefinable conspiracy.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/11/article-0-193E760B000005DC-816_634x422.jpg)
Anyway have a great day and don't be a stranger!
JohnM
Hi John. I went over to the Ed Forum because (supposedly) the Crème de la Crème of CT's were there and I was looking to discuss the case with the best. I have been a member over there for maybe nine or ten months now and I have been disappointed in the quality of conspiracy advocates over there. Kook City.
Regarding the wallet, Besides Barrett, Croy is the only other member of law enforcement who ever mentioned a wallet at the scene. Dale Myers interviewed Bentley, Poe, Jez, Shipley and Leavelle. All were at the scene. None of them knew anything about any wallet. Westbrook, who supposedly asked Barrett if he knew the names Oswald and Hidell, never mentioned any wallet at the scene.
I hope you're well, Buddy. If you ever decide to debate the case in the Facebook groups, let me know. I'm Admin of two groups. One centered on the entire case, the other centered solely on the Tippit case.
-
Thanks Bill
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.
JohnM
Also, Bob Carroll stated that the (arrest) wallet contained identifications listing two names, not just one.
-
Hi John. I went over to the Ed Forum because (supposedly) the Crème de la Crème of CT's were there and I was looking to discuss the case with the best. I have been a member over there for maybe nine or ten months now and I have been disappointed in the quality of conspiracy advocates over there. Kook City.
Regarding the wallet, Besides Barrett, Croy is the only other member of law enforcement who ever mentioned a wallet at the scene. Dale Myers interviewed Bentley, Poe, Jez, Shipley and Leavelle. All were at the scene. None of them knew anything about any wallet. Westbrook, who supposedly asked Barrett if he knew the names Oswald and Hidell, never mentioned any wallet at the scene.
I hope you're well, Buddy. If you ever decide to debate the case in the Facebook groups, let me know. I'm Admin of two groups. One centered on the entire case, the other centered solely on the Tippit case.
When did Barrett and Croy first mention the wallet and what did both say that the wallet contained.
Btw you have been the Tippit expert who I always trust to have the best information on the case. Thumb1:
Yes you are also right about Carroll, thanks for further reinforcing my faith in your expertise!
Mr. BELIN. Was he ever asked his name?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; he was asked his name.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give his name?
Mr. CARROLL. He gave, the best I recall, I wasn't able to look closely, but the best I recall, he gave two names, I think. I don't recall what the other one was.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give two names? Or did someone in the car read from the identification?
Mr. CARROLL. Someone in the car may have read from the identification. I know two names, the best I recall, were mentioned.
JohnM
-
When did Barrett and Croy first mention the wallet and what did both say that the wallet contained.
Btw you have been the Tippit expert who I always trust to have the best information on the case. Thumb1:
Yes you are also right about Carroll, thanks for further reinforcing my faith in your expertise!
Mr. BELIN. Was he ever asked his name?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; he was asked his name.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give his name?
Mr. CARROLL. He gave, the best I recall, I wasn't able to look closely, but the best I recall, he gave two names, I think. I don't recall what the other one was.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give two names? Or did someone in the car read from the identification?
Mr. CARROLL. Someone in the car may have read from the identification. I know two names, the best I recall, were mentioned.
JohnM
When did Barrett and Croy first mention the wallet and what did both say that the wallet contained.
Many believe that Barrett first mentions the wallet during his dinner with Hosty, which Hosty then goes on to mention in his book Assignment Oswald.
However, there are newspaper articles from the 1980's (I've seen them and read them in the past but couldn't possibly recall them now, but it was more than one) in which Barrett, in interviews with newspaper reporters, mentions a wallet at the scene. In other words, the first we hear of the wallet is not in Hosty's book, but in newspaper articles a decade before Hosty wrote his book (1996). As for the contents of this Tenth & Patton wallet, obviously Barrett said it contained Oswald and Hidell identifications since Westbrook asked him about the names. In interviews with Dale Myers, Barrett said he never personally handled the wallet and never saw the contents of the wallet at the scene (Barrett did say he later saw the contents of Oswald's wallet, most likely the contents photos we've all seen by now).
As for Croy, he testified to the Warren Commission and never mentioned any wallet during his testimony. The first I personally hear of Croy mentioning any wallet was in an interview he did with researcher Jones Harris in 2002.
In a 2009 interview with Dale Myers, Croy said that he thought the wallet had seven different identification inside. Croy stated that none of the ID's had a photo attached and none included the name Oswald.
Interestingly enough, John Armstrong writes about Croy and the wallet (Harvey and Lee, 2003), citing the 2002 interview Croy did with Jones Harris. Armstrong said that Croy was handed a wallet by an unidentified person and that the wallet contained identifications for both Oswald and Hidell. Remember, Croy told Myers in 2009 that none of the identifications were in the name of Oswald.
Btw you have been the Tippit expert who I always trust to have the best information on the case. Thumb1:
Thanks John. I appreciate that a lot coming from you. The Tippit case is just a passion I have.
-
Neither Hill nor Carroll mention this Hidell ID in their December reports to Curry. It’s only months later in their testimonies.
-
Neither Hill nor Carroll mention this Hidell ID in their December reports to Curry. It’s only months later in their testimonies.
Indeed, the WC "investigation" gave them every possibility to clean up the record.
And even then, Hill and Carroll both relied on Bentley (who Bill Brown considers unreliable) and they still couldn't get beyond "the best I recall" (Carroll) and "there was some more identification in this other name which I don't remember" (Hill). What is this? Amateur hour?
Defense lawyers would have had a field day with these guys. They allegedly find a piece of vital evidence in Oswald's wallet, but don't report the finding. Nobody says anything about it for months, not even in their reports to Fritz and only after six months or so they come up with some vague statements about what they may recall but don't really remember.
And even worse; if they wanted confirmation about what was in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, why did they ask Hill and Carroll and NOT Bentley? I believe that this was for the same reason they never showed CE399 to Tomlinson... The risk of the witness saying something they did not want to hear was simply to great!
-
The recent pages of this thread are exactly why I always say that the wallet is a rabbit hole that none of us should bother going down. It's a complete waste of time and always will be.
-
The recent pages of this thread is exactly why I always say that the wallet is a rabbit hole that none of us should bother going down. It's a complete waste of time and always will be.
Everything about the Kennedy and Tippit killings is a massive rabbit hole. The entire case does not resemble a normal murder investigation, either because of incompentence or by design.
a rabbit hole that none of us should bother going down
And instead we should just accept that the Hidell ID was indeed in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, despite there being no evidence for it. Is that what you're saying?
-
What I noted was that in Bentley's own account, he accompanied Walker, Oswald, Carrol, and Hill to Fritz' office and turned over the wallet there.
Bentley didn't say that. In his report he just said he turned over "his information" (whatever that means) to Baker. You just assume he was talking about the wallet. That's beyond weak!
And even worse, as Gus Rose started talking to Oswald as soon as he was brought in and was given a wallet (somebody said was Oswald's) none of this contradicts the possibility that the wallets were switched and that Rose was given the Tippit scene wallet, which we know from FBI agent Barrett did contain a Hidell ID.
I'll take his word for it
Apparently, Bill Brown doesn't take his word at all. But beyond that, you are taking his word about what?
Why would he be expected to provide that in the report? It is only your own presumption that he would have.
So the officer who found a vital and incriminating piece of evidence doesn't have to report that and doesn't have to be part of the chain of custody? Is that what you are foolishly trying to say?
You do understand that before they went to Fritz's office where you think Bentley turned over the wallet, they had already left Oswald with Rose and he (according to his testimony) had already been given a wallet by then. So even your silly timeline doesn't work!
Bentley didn't say that. In his report he just said he turned over "his information" (whatever that means) to Baker. You just assume he was talking about the wallet. That's beyond weak!
Bentley wrote: "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest." "Identification" is, of course, much more specific than "information." "Turned over" implies a physical transfer. The only physical identification that Bentley could have turned over is what he took from Oswald, unless you want to conjure something out of the cold thin air of your imagination. And there was no reason for Bentley to have kept the wallet and it's remaining contents, unless you want to conjure something else out of the cold thin air of your imagination.
none of this contradicts the possibility that the wallets were switched and that Rose was given the Tippit scene wallet
So, you're going to assert something you've imagined then demand that we prove you wrong?
But beyond that, you are taking his word about what?
That he would have known what he did that day much better than you ever will.
So the officer who found a vital and incriminating piece of evidence doesn't have to report that and doesn't have to be part of the chain of custody? Is that what you are foolishly trying to say?
In other words, you really are simply presuming what you think Bentley, et al, would have reported and how they would have reported it.
You do understand that before they went to Fritz's office where you think Bentley turned over the wallet, they had already left Oswald with Rose and he (according to his testimony) had already been given a wallet by then. So even your silly timeline doesn't work!
By "Fritz' office," I was referring to the Robbery and Homicide Bureau suite at DPD HQ, within which was Fritz personal office. Rose and Baker both worked for Fritz and occupied desks within the suite.
-
Bentley didn't say that. In his report he just said he turned over "his information" (whatever that means) to Baker. You just assume he was talking about the wallet. That's beyond weak!
Bentley wrote: "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest." "Identification" is, of course, much more specific than "information." "Turned over" implies a physical transfer. The only physical identification that Bentley could have turned over is what he took from Oswald, unless you want to conjure something out of the cold thin air of your imagination. And there was no reason for Bentley to have kept the wallet and it's remaining contents, unless you want to conjure something else out of the cold thin air of your imagination.
Bentley wrote: "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest." "Identification" is, of course, much more specific than "information."
Bla bla bla... your desperate need to score a minor point is duly noted.
"Turned over" implies a physical transfer. The only physical identification that Bentley could have turned over is what he took from Oswald,
Sure, and what exactly did Bentley turn over? He said it himself; "his identification", meaning of course Oswald's. Not a word about Hidell. Now, isn't that strange? Not a word about there being ID's in two different names and not knowing which one is the correct name. Nothing, nada, zero....
none of this contradicts the possibility that the wallets were switched and that Rose was given the Tippit scene wallet
So, you're going to assert something you've imagined then demand that we prove you wrong?
I didn't imagine that FBI agent Barrett said there was a wallet at the Tippit scene and that Westbrook asked him about Oswald and Hidell, did I? I also didn't imagine that Ron Reiland said it was a wallet (which he mistakenly believed belonged to Tippit), did I?
Did I imagine that none of the four officers who were with Oswald in the car said anything about a Hidell ID being in Oswald's wallet and that there is no DPD report that mentions finding such a vital piece of evidence?
Did I imagine that only Hill and Carroll made very vague comments about the Hidell ID in their WC testimony, some six months later, and that the WC didn't even call Bentley (the man who actually inspected the wallet) to testify about finding the Hidell ID? That would be the same Hill, btw, who also screwed up the chain of custody for the revolver, but that's another issue.
There is no evidentiary case to show that the Hidell ID was in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, but there most certainly is a circumstantial case (not a very strong one, I'll grant you that) that there was indeed a wallet found at the Tippit scene which contained Oswald's ID and the fake Hidell ID.
So, given this, yes I do think you should at least try to prove me wrong with something a bit more than assumptions about what was in the wallet Bentley gave to Baker and when he gave it to him.
But beyond that, you are taking his word about what?
That he would have known what he did that day much better than you ever will.
Who? Oh you mean Bentley.... sure he knew better what he did that day than I do. He just failed miserably in communicating what he did and when he did it.
So the officer who found a vital and incriminating piece of evidence doesn't have to report that and doesn't have to be part of the chain of custody? Is that what you are foolishly trying to say?
In other words, you really are simply presuming what you think Bentley, et al, would have reported and how they would have reported it.
No, I'm simply saying that there are police procedures about how to handle evidence. There should at least be a conclusive chain of custody, starting with the person who actually found the item and there should be at least one report about the circumstances of the discovery. But wait, I just realized who I am talking to... now you are going to try to turn this into a pages long go nowhere discussion about police procedures, right? Well don't...because I am not going to go there.
You do understand that before they went to Fritz's office where you think Bentley turned over the wallet, they had already left Oswald with Rose and he (according to his testimony) had already been given a wallet by then. So even your silly timeline doesn't work!
By "Fritz' office," I was referring to the Robbery and Homicide Bureau suite at DPD HQ, within which was Fritz personal office. Rose and Baker both worked for Fritz and occupied desks within the suite.
Yes I do know that. It makes no difference. Your quote from Bentley's report made it clear that he turned over "his identification" to Lt. Baker and then he went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest. In other words, he gave the "identification" to Baker when he left the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose, at that time, was already talking to Oswald!
-
Let's make this easy...
Show me the actual evidence (so not opinions or assumptions) that the fake Hidell ID was in the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald in the car on the way to the police station, and I'll shut up about the Tippit scene wallet and how they were possibly switched.
C'mon LNs...
-
The evidence that Oswald at various times was questioned about the Hidell Identification that Oswald had on his person is beyond all doubt.
We have The Chief of Police, The Captain of the Dallas Police Department, US Postal Inspector, A Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Dallas Police officers who all testified that Oswald was questioned about the Hidell Identification.
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. BELIN. All right, what else?
Mr. HOLMES. In his billfold the police had found a draft registration card in the name of A. J. Hidell on his person at the time of his arrest, and I had seen it.
......
Mr. BELIN. Was anything in that room--was he asked about knowing Alek Hidell? Or anything about Alek Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. I brought it up first as to did he ever have a package sent to him from anywhere. I said, "Did you receive mail through this box 2915 under the name of any other name than Lee Oswald," and he said, "Absolutely not."
"What about a package to an A. J. Hidell?"
He said, "No."
"Well, did you order a gun in that name to come there?"
"No, absolutely not."
"Had one come under that name, could this fellow have gotten it?"
He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is possible she could have."
"Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."
I showed him the box rental application for the post office box in New Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?"
And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell."
"Well, I don't know anything about that."
That is all he would say about it.
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.
Mr. BALL. Another thing, that day, at sometime during the 22d when you questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his pocket with the name Alek Hidell?
Mr. FRITZ. I did; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you ask him about that?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe he had three of those cards if I remember correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was the Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or something.
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. BALL. He didn't tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out." And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask a question? What was Oswald's attitude toward the police? Have you any comment on that?
Mr. CURRY - The only things I heard him say, he was very arrogant. He was very--he had a dislike for authority, it seemed, of anyone. He denied anything you asked him. I heard them ask once or twice if this was his picture or something, he said, "I don't know what you are talking about. No; it is not my picture," and this was a picture of him holding a rifle or something. I remember one time they showed him and he denied that being him.
I remember he denied anything knowing anything about a man named Hidell that he had this identification in his pocket or in his notebook, and I believe a postal inspector was in this room at the time, too, and someone asked him about the fact that he had a post office box in the name of Hidell and he didn't know anything about that. He just didn't know anything about anything.
(https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1553876427-id.JPG)
JohnM
-
The evidence that Oswald at various times was questioned about the Hidell Identification that Oswald had on his person is beyond all doubt.
We have The Chief of Police, The Captain of the Dallas Police Department, US Postal Inspector, A Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Dallas Police officers who all testified that Oswald was questioned about the Hidell Identification.
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. BELIN. All right, what else?
Mr. HOLMES. In his billfold the police had found a draft registration card in the name of A. J. Hidell on his person at the time of his arrest, and I had seen it.
......
Mr. BELIN. Was anything in that room--was he asked about knowing Alek Hidell? Or anything about Alek Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. I brought it up first as to did he ever have a package sent to him from anywhere. I said, "Did you receive mail through this box 2915 under the name of any other name than Lee Oswald," and he said, "Absolutely not."
"What about a package to an A. J. Hidell?"
He said, "No."
"Well, did you order a gun in that name to come there?"
"No, absolutely not."
"Had one come under that name, could this fellow have gotten it?"
He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is possible she could have."
"Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."
I showed him the box rental application for the post office box in New Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?"
And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell."
"Well, I don't know anything about that."
That is all he would say about it.
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.
Mr. BALL. Another thing, that day, at sometime during the 22d when you questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his pocket with the name Alek Hidell?
Mr. FRITZ. I did; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you ask him about that?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe he had three of those cards if I remember correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was the Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or something.
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. BALL. He didn't tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out." And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask a question? What was Oswald's attitude toward the police? Have you any comment on that?
Mr. CURRY - The only things I heard him say, he was very arrogant. He was very--he had a dislike for authority, it seemed, of anyone. He denied anything you asked him. I heard them ask once or twice if this was his picture or something, he said, "I don't know what you are talking about. No; it is not my picture," and this was a picture of him holding a rifle or something. I remember one time they showed him and he denied that being him.
I remember he denied anything knowing anything about a man named Hidell that he had this identification in his pocket or in his notebook, and I believe a postal inspector was in this room at the time, too, and someone asked him about the fact that he had a post office box in the name of Hidell and he didn't know anything about that. He just didn't know anything about anything.
(https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1553876427-id.JPG)
JohnM
The evidence that Oswald at various times was questioned about the Hidell Identification that Oswald had on his person is beyond all doubt.
Irrelevant. The fake Hidell ID exists and, yes, Oswald was asked about it, but that doesn't answer my question.
-
The evidence that Oswald at various times was questioned about the Hidell Identification that Oswald had on his person is beyond all doubt.
Irrelevant. The fake Hidell ID exists and, yes, Oswald was asked about it, but that doesn't answer my question.
Time machine?
-
Time machine?
And that's number two who is unable to answer my question.
-
Several cops told the same story months later. It must be true. ::)
-
Several cops told the same story months later. It must be true. ::)
Not only "cops" but also an FBI agent and a Postal inspector, did they all get together beforehand to get their extensive testimonials straight? Don't you honestly find that completely absurd, but I guess whatever it takes hey John?
And let's look at what we learnt from the "months later" testimonies from the guys who were trying to frame the long dead Oswald;
Oswald denied owning a rifle
Oswald denied being in the backyard photos
Oswald denied admitting to Frazier that he went to Irving for curtain rods
Oswald said he bought a revolver in Fort Worth.
Oswald denied putting a long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
Oswald said that he only had his lunch with him that morning.
Oswald said he was having lunch at the time.
Geez John, "months later" the narrative was well established yet these guys collaborated to say the above??? LMFAO!
JohnM
-
The evidence that Oswald at various times was questioned about the Hidell Identification that Oswald had on his person is beyond all doubt.
Irrelevant. The fake Hidell ID exists and, yes, Oswald was asked about it, but that doesn't answer my question.
My post wasn't put forth to answer your question, in fact I never even read your question!
But I have now, and for a start no matter what is said, you will never "shut up", because when cornered you usually play the "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked", you can't help yourself.
And secondly Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID so why on Earth would they swap the Hidel ID with the Hidell ID, it doesn't make sense?
JohnM
-
The evidence that Oswald at various times was questioned about the Hidell Identification that Oswald had on his person is beyond all doubt.
We have The Chief of Police, The Captain of the Dallas Police Department, US Postal Inspector, A Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Dallas Police officers who all testified that Oswald was questioned about the Hidell Identification.
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. BELIN. All right, what else?
Mr. HOLMES. In his billfold the police had found a draft registration card in the name of A. J. Hidell on his person at the time of his arrest, and I had seen it.
......
Mr. BELIN. Was anything in that room--was he asked about knowing Alek Hidell? Or anything about Alek Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. I brought it up first as to did he ever have a package sent to him from anywhere. I said, "Did you receive mail through this box 2915 under the name of any other name than Lee Oswald," and he said, "Absolutely not."
"What about a package to an A. J. Hidell?"
He said, "No."
"Well, did you order a gun in that name to come there?"
"No, absolutely not."
"Had one come under that name, could this fellow have gotten it?"
He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is possible she could have."
"Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."
I showed him the box rental application for the post office box in New Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?"
And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell."
"Well, I don't know anything about that."
That is all he would say about it.
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.
Mr. BALL. Another thing, that day, at sometime during the 22d when you questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his pocket with the name Alek Hidell?
Mr. FRITZ. I did; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you ask him about that?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe he had three of those cards if I remember correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was the Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or something.
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. BALL. He didn't tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out." And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask a question? What was Oswald's attitude toward the police? Have you any comment on that?
Mr. CURRY - The only things I heard him say, he was very arrogant. He was very--he had a dislike for authority, it seemed, of anyone. He denied anything you asked him. I heard them ask once or twice if this was his picture or something, he said, "I don't know what you are talking about. No; it is not my picture," and this was a picture of him holding a rifle or something. I remember one time they showed him and he denied that being him.
I remember he denied anything knowing anything about a man named Hidell that he had this identification in his pocket or in his notebook, and I believe a postal inspector was in this room at the time, too, and someone asked him about the fact that he had a post office box in the name of Hidell and he didn't know anything about that. He just didn't know anything about anything.
(https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1553876427-id.JPG)
JohnM
Here’s an image of the card that LHO was apparently issued by the SSA and allegedly used to create the fake one with the Hidell name.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339690/m1/1/med_res/)
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339690/ (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339690/)
The similarities between the two cards suggest to me that the “allegedly” in the above sentence should be eliminated.
-
Here’s an image of the card that LHO was apparently issued by the SSA and allegedly used to create the fake one with the Hidell name.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339690/m1/1/med_res/)
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339690/ (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339690/)
The similarities between the two cards suggest to me that the “allegedly” in the above sentence should be eliminated.
The similarities between the two cards suggest to me that the “allegedly” in the above sentence should be eliminated.
Thumb1:
And here's the negatives that were used to manufacture the fake Hidell identification that were discovered amongst Oswald's possessions
(https://i.postimg.cc/PqJWBNrp/Cadigan-20-Hidell-selective-negative.jpg)
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 20. (The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 20.)
Mr. CADIGAN. And by referring to the Cadigan Exhibit No. 20, which shows the retouching, examination of the area in the word "President" will show where the portion of the "r" has been cut off. It will show where the capital letter "I" appears in the space provided "been classified in Class," the "I" being' part of the classification, Roman numeral "IV-A," which appears on the original card.
Cadigan Exhibit No. 20 shows, also, the intermediate negative where the size of the warning appearing on the bottom of the card was reduced, and the additional retouching made that causes the distorted appearance of the word "violation" on the Commission Exhibit No. 795, so that it was based on my comparison side by side of the negatives; the photographic print, and the original exhibit in the wallet of Oswald, which enabled me to determine that this Commission Exhibit No. 795 was a fraudulent counterfeit made from retouched negatives which, in turn, were made from the original exhibits, Commission Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802.
JohnM
-
My post wasn't put forth to answer your question, in fact I never even read your question!
But I have now, and for a start no matter what is said, you will never "shut up", because when cornered you usually play the "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked", you can't help yourself.
And secondly Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID so why on Earth would they swap the Hidel ID with the Hidell ID, it doesn't make sense?
JohnM
But I have now, and for a start no matter what is said, you will never "shut up", because when cornered you usually play the "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked", you can't help yourself.
I have never said "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked".
LNs always go with this BS when they have nothing. It's an admission of a total lack of credible evidence.
And secondly Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID
No he didn't. There is no record for such an admission and the usual "a police man said it" is just BS.
it doesn't make sense?
Of course it makes no sense, when you start with a lie.
Given the number of lies and misrepresentations you've told and made over the years you really should understand that by now, but it seems you still don't.
-
Thumb1:
And here's the negatives that were used to manufacture the fake Hidell identification that were discovered amongst Oswald's possessions
(https://i.postimg.cc/PqJWBNrp/Cadigan-20-Hidell-selective-negative.jpg)
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 20. (The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 20.)
Mr. CADIGAN. And by referring to the Cadigan Exhibit No. 20, which shows the retouching, examination of the area in the word "President" will show where the portion of the "r" has been cut off. It will show where the capital letter "I" appears in the space provided "been classified in Class," the "I" being' part of the classification, Roman numeral "IV-A," which appears on the original card.
Cadigan Exhibit No. 20 shows, also, the intermediate negative where the size of the warning appearing on the bottom of the card was reduced, and the additional retouching made that causes the distorted appearance of the word "violation" on the Commission Exhibit No. 795, so that it was based on my comparison side by side of the negatives; the photographic print, and the original exhibit in the wallet of Oswald, which enabled me to determine that this Commission Exhibit No. 795 was a fraudulent counterfeit made from retouched negatives which, in turn, were made from the original exhibits, Commission Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802.
JohnM
Thumb1:
Also:
Paul Bentley, “No More Silence”, page 287:
Shortly after we left the theater I took Oswald’s wallet out of his left rear pocket which contained two or three identification cards. One of the names listed was Lee Harvey Oswald; the other was Hidell.
-
Thumb1:
Also:
Paul Bentley, “No More Silence”, page 287:
Shortly after we left the theater I took Oswald’s wallet out of his left rear pocket which contained two or three identification cards. One of the names listed was Lee Harvey Oswald; the other was Hidell.
He just forgot to tell anybody that on the day it happened or write a report about it..... He's trying to re-write history! :D
-
But I have now, and for a start no matter what is said, you will never "shut up", because when cornered you usually play the "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked", you can't help yourself.
I have never said "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked".
LNs always go with this BS when they have nothing. It's an admission of a total lack of credible evidence.
And secondly Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID
No he didn't. There is no record for such an admission and the usual "a police man said it" is just BS.
it doesn't make sense?
Of course it makes no sense, when you start with a lie.
Given the number of lies and misrepresentations you've told and made over the years you really should understand that by now, but it seems you still don't.
I have never said "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked".
I never said that you used those specific words.
and the usual "a police man said it" is just BS.
And just as I did say and before you even finished your reply, when you're cornered you have already pulled the "they all lied"! You must be the dumbest CT on the Planet, HILARIOUS!
JohnM
-
I never said that you used those specific words.
And just as I did say and before you even finished your reply, when you're cornered you have already pulled the "they all lied"! You must be the dumbest CT on the Planet, HILARIOUS!
JohnM
I never said that you used those specific words.
Then why did you put them in quotation marks?
And just as I did say and before you even finished your reply, when you're cornered you have already pulled the "they all lied"! You must be the dumbest CT on the Planet, HILARIOUS!
First of all, I am not cornered, and secondly I didn't pull anything of the sort. You may be stupidly prepared to blindly accept what police officers say, when there isn't a shred of evidence to support it, but I'm not. Even more so when none of the officers involved said anything about a fake Hidell ID for nearly six months and when they did say something in their testimony it was extremely vague.
Now, can you show me in which report it says that "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID", or not?
-
I never said that you used those specific words.
Then why did you put them in quotation marks?
4. Set apart a word to show irony, sarcasm, or skepticism (scare quotes)
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/
JohnM
-
Thumb1:
Also:
Paul Bentley, “No More Silence”, page 287:
Shortly after we left the theater I took Oswald’s wallet out of his left rear pocket which contained two or three identification cards. One of the names listed was Lee Harvey Oswald; the other was Hidell.
Thanks, the evidence that Oswald manufactured and then was carrying the Hidell identification at the time of his arrest is beyond all doubt.
JohnM
-
Not only "cops" but also an FBI agent and a Postal inspector, did they all get together beforehand to get their extensive testimonials straight?
No need to “get together”. The narrative was firmly in place by that time. Besides, Harry “but there was a Coke involved” Holmes doesn’t count.
And let's look at what we learnt from the "months later" testimonies from the guys who were trying to frame the long dead Oswald;
Oswald denied owning a rifle
Oswald denied being in the backyard photos
Oswald denied admitting to Frazier that he went to Irving for curtain rods
Oswald said he bought a revolver in Fort Worth.
Oswald denied putting a long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
Oswald said that he only had his lunch with him that morning.
Oswald said he was having lunch at the time.
Are any of these claims — even if true — supposed to be evidence of murder?
LOL
-
But I have now, and for a start no matter what is said, you will never "shut up", because when cornered you usually play the "they all lied" and/or "the physical evidence is faked", you can't help yourself.
Martin has never made either of these claims. But nice try.
And secondly Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID so why on Earth would they swap the Hidel ID with the Hidell ID, it doesn't make sense?
You don’t know what Oswald admitted.
-
Thanks, the evidence that Oswald manufactured and then was carrying the Hidell identification at the time of his arrest is beyond all doubt.
JohnM
So, you can't show me where it says that "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID"? I thought as much.
-
Thanks, the evidence that Oswald manufactured and then was carrying the Hidell identification at the time of his arrest is beyond all doubt.
What is your evidence of Oswald “manufacturing” anything?
-
You don’t know what Oswald admitted.
Either Oswald said it or all the people I quoted lied, the typical CT defence.
JohnM
-
What is your evidence of Oswald “manufacturing” anything?
The negatives used to manufacture the Hidell ID was found within Oswald's possessions so either Oswald made it or it was planted, the typical CT defence.
JohnM
-
Either Oswald said it or all the people I quoted lied, the typical CT defence.
All what people? You mean Leavelle, who wasn’t even at the interrogations?
-
Are any of these claims — even if true — supposed to be evidence of murder?
The fact that Oswald lied constantly about the rifle during his interrogations is powerful evidence of his innocence?
JohnM
-
The negatives used to manufacture the Hidell ID was found within Oswald's possessions so either Oswald made it or it was planted, the typical CT defence.
A) How did you determine what things at the Paine house were “Oswald’s possessions”?
B) Since when does possessing something mean that you manufactured it anyway?
C) You can’t even prove that ID was made with those negatives. They don’t say Hidell.
-
All what people? You mean Leavelle, who wasn’t even at the interrogations?
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."
JohnM
-
The fact that Oswald lied constantly about the rifle during his interrogations is powerful evidence of his innocence?
“Lie” defined as “ ‘Mytton’ doesn’t believe it’s true”.
-
Nothing about this in Kelley’s report.
-
What is your evidence of Oswald “manufacturing” anything?
He hasn't got any, as per usual.
What I find amazing is that clowns like Mytton think that Oswald would even (1) manufacture such a card, (2) leave the evidence of making the card where it can easily be found and then (3) walk around with a card with his photo on it and a name that would tie him to the ordering of the rifle and the revolver. Just how completely out of this world stupid is this?
The irony is that Oswald never needed to manufacture a fake Hidell ID in the first place, because (1) he did not have to supply identification when he allegedly ordered the rifle and the revolver and (2) the entire investigation never turned up an occassion where Oswald actually used that Hidell ID, which means (3) there would be no benefit for him to walk around with an ID that is so obviously faked that it would serve no purpose whatsoever to begin with.
None of that matters to clowns like superficial Mytton.
To them it's entirely "logical" that a guy who just killed the President (allegedly), leaves the rifle and the shells at the crime scene, then draws attention to himself by leaving to TSBD quickly (so he can't be at the line up of all the staff members), then ensures that people notice him as he makes his way to the rooming house, first by bus (asking for the transfer) and then by taxi (offering it to a woman). He then, supposedly, runs like mad to a nowhere place like 10th street where he allegedly kills a police officer for no apparent reason (drawing even more attention to himself) and again leaving shells at the scene of the crime. Then when he is finally arrested he carries a fake ID which links him to the ordering of the rifle and revolver. It is hard to figure out what more Oswald could have done to draw attention to himself. In the real world that would be a red flag but for types like Mytton and Smith it's seems to be quite normal behavior for a guy who allegedly just killed two people.
-
The irony is that Oswald never needed to manufacture a fake Hidell ID in the first place, because (1) he did not have to supply identification when he allegedly ordered the rifle and the revolver and (2) the entire investigation never turned up an occassion where Oswald actually used that Hidell ID, which means (3) there would be no benefit for him to walk around with an ID that is so obviously faked that it would serve no purpose whatsoever to begin with.
Either Oswald manufactured and carried the Hidell Identification or are you going to throw more faked evidence, planted evidence and lying officials onto your ever growing increasingly complex defence mountain?
And just like I said, whenever you can't explain the evidence out comes the they all lied and all the evidence against Oswald is faked. But Weidmann when are you going to actually prove any of your allegations because otherwise your opinion about what you think should happen and your vivid imagination is just paranoid rubbish which proves nothing!
JohnM
-
He just forgot to tell anybody that on the day it happened or write a report about it..... He's trying to re-write history! :D
Sounds kind of like Bob Barrett. No?
-
Either Oswald manufactured and carried the Hidell Identification or are you going to throw more faked evidence, planted evidence and lying officials onto your ever growing increasingly complex defence mountain?
And just like I said, whenever you can't explain the evidence out comes the they all lied and all the evidence against Oswald is faked. But Weidmann when are you going to actually prove any of your allegations because otherwise your opinion about what you think should happen and your vivid imagination is just paranoid rubbish which proves nothing!
JohnM
Can somebody please translate the world salad into something that makes sense?
Btw, why am I not surprised that you simply do not understand what I was saying?
Either Oswald manufactured and carried the Hidell Identification or are you going to throw more faked evidence, planted evidence and lying officials onto your ever growing increasingly complex defence mountain?
I don't have to throw anything on your made up mountain. You claim Oswald manufactured and carried the Hidell ID, so you need to provide the evidence for that. So far you are failing miserably.
I've already asked you several times to prove that "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID". Why don't you just provide that evidence instead of trying to attack me on non-issues?
-
Sounds kind of like Bob Barrett. No?
Does it? Don't think so. How was Bob Barrett trying to re-write history?
-
“Lie” defined as “ ‘Mytton’ doesn’t believe it’s true”.
You always want to make it personal and attack the messenger, as if that somehow proves your case but the rock solid evidence, advanced scientific examination, expert forensic analysis and the lack of any proven conspiracy is and always will be what history remembers.
Maybe if any CT can point to a feasible alternate narrative then perhaps the real World might listen but till then the rapid arm waving of a hundred contradicting CT's is barely being noticed.
You lot remind me of an Uncle Nobody who at family gatherings sits in the corner drooling while wildly spewing nonsense and everyone who's sane steers well away.
JohnM
-
I've already asked you several times to prove that "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID". Why don't you just provide that evidence instead of trying to attack me on non-issues?
Seriously? The testimony from multiple diverse eyewitnesses has been provided, if you don't believe it because of your nonsensical bias then that's your problem.
JohnM
-
You always want to make it personal and attack the messenger, as if that somehow proves your case but the rock solid evidence, advanced scientific examination, expert forensic analysis and the lack of any proven conspiracy is and always will be what history remembers.
Maybe if any CT can point to a feasible alternate narrative then perhaps the real World might listen but till then the rapid arm waving of a hundred contradicting CT's is barely being noticed.
You lot remind me of an Uncle Nobody who at family gatherings sits in the corner drooling while wildly spewing nonsense and everyone who's sane steers well away.
JohnM
You always want to make it personal and attack the messenger
Says the guy who has been attacking me ever since he jumped into the conversation. Hilarious!
And then he goes off on a meaningless childish and pathetic rant about those mean CTs who just don't believe the crap he's trying to sell them..... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Seriously? The testimony from multiple diverse eyewitnesses has been provided, if you don't believe it because of your nonsensical bias then that's your problem.
JohnM
What "testimony from multiple diverse eyewitnesses" are you talking about? You're just making this stuff up, which is why you can't specify or show the actual testimony. Since I don't know what testimony you are talking about, there is nothing for me to believe or not believe, but when it comes to believing a word you say, I just don't because you're one of the biggest liars of them all.
Now, where is the documention that confirms "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID"? Provide it or shut up!
-
Sounds kind of like Bob Barrett. No?
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
-
Now, where is the documention that confirms "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID"? Provide it or shut up!
It's not my problem that you don't know the evidence, I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink.
JohnM
-
It's not my problem that you don't know the evidence, I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink.
JohnM
Translation: I'm only blowing smoke and have nothing.
-
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
Anything's better that just debating the actual evidence, right Johnny?
Keep running....
-
Anything's better that just debating the actual evidence, right Johnny?
Keep running....
I only debate the evidence and quote actual testimony and supply Commission Exhibits to support my arguments whereas you makeup stuff like substituting the word "information" instead of "identification" in the weak hope no one notices but luckily Mitch knows the evidence a bit better than you.
And your (easily fact checked) story about Bentley taking Oswald's wallet to the Hospital was extra Kooky.
And saying to Richard that the wallet in the TV footage wasn't even opened "In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened", yet another Marty clanger.
C'mon Weidmann just admit that your reality is in trying to discredit the CT's because you are doing nothing to further the Conspiracy cause and this last Whopper of a theory about substituting wallets/identification is especially embarrassing because as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, why coverup the most damning piece of evidence in the Tippit murder? and don't repeat your indefensible BS when we all know the Dallas Police were in control of all the evidence.
And ALL this is just in the short time I've been back posting. WOW!
Btw thanks for calling me Johnny, that was my nickname when I was a young'un and it brings back some neato memories.
JohnM
-
I only debate the evidence and quote actual testimony and supply Commission Exhibits to support my arguments whereas you makeup stuff like substituting the word "information" instead of "identification" in the weak hope no one notices but luckily Mitch knows the evidence a bit better than you.
And your (easily fact checked) story about Bentley taking Oswald's wallet to the Hospital was extra Kooky.
And saying to Richard that the wallet in the TV footage wasn't even opened "In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened", yet another Marty clanger.
C'mon Weidmann just admit that your reality is in trying to discredit the CT's because you are doing nothing to further the Conspiracy cause and this last Whopper of a theory about substituting wallets/identification is especially embarrassing because as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, why coverup the most damning piece of evidence in the Tippit murder? and don't repeat your indefensible BS when we all know the Dallas Police were in control of all the evidence.
And ALL this is just in the short time I've been back posting. WOW!
JohnM
You left off Weidmann's claim that no physical description of the Tippit killer was broadcast on the police radio. All of us are wrong from time to time, no biggie. But THAT is Tippit 101.
-
You left off Weidmann's claim that no physical description of the Tippit killer was broadcast on the police radio. All of us are wrong from time to time, no biggie. But THAT is Tippit 101.
Thumb1:
Thanks Bill, I missed that one. :D
Btw I'm enjoying the Jacket debate over at the Ed Forum and even though Greg Doudna has a lot of ideas I don't agree with, he conducts himself like a gentleman and the fact that he fights for Ruth Paine in that World of slander and lies is encouraging.
JohnM
-
I only debate the evidence and quote actual testimony and supply Commission Exhibits to support my arguments whereas you makeup stuff like substituting the word "information" instead of "identification" in the weak hope no one notices but luckily Mitch knows the evidence a bit better than you.
And your (easily fact checked) story about Bentley taking Oswald's wallet to the Hospital was extra Kooky.
And saying to Richard that the wallet in the TV footage wasn't even opened "In the footage you see the wallet being held but not opened", yet another Marty clanger.
C'mon Weidmann just admit that your reality is in trying to discredit the CT's because you are doing nothing to further the Conspiracy cause and this last Whopper of a theory about substituting wallets/identification is especially embarrassing because as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, why coverup the most damning piece of evidence in the Tippit murder? and don't repeat your indefensible BS when we all know the Dallas Police were in control of all the evidence.
And ALL this is just in the short time I've been back posting. WOW!
Btw thanks for calling me Johnny, that was my nickname when I was a young'un and it brings back some neato memories.
JohnM
Thumb1:
Thanks Bill, I missed that one. :D
Btw I'm enjoying the Jacket debate over at the Ed Forum and even though Greg Doudna has a lot of ideas I don't agree with, he conducts himself like a gentleman and the fact that he fights for Ruth Paine in that World of slander and lies is encouraging.
JohnM
When LNs resort to attacking somebody who disagrees with them, it only means they have no evidence to support their claims.
I only debate the evidence and quote actual testimony and supply Commission Exhibits to support my arguments
Really? Prove it by showing me where it says that "Oswald begrudgingly admitted to several law enforcement officers that he was carrying the Hidell ID" instead of giving me the usual "It's not my problem that you don't know the evidence" crap you are known for?
Also, I asked a little while back;
Show me the actual evidence (so not opinions or assumptions) that the fake Hidell ID was in the wallet that Bentley took from Oswald in the car on the way to the police station, and I'll shut up about the Tippit scene wallet and how they were possibly switched.
So far, all you've been doing is whining about nasty CTs to divert the attention away from this question as you clearly don't have an answer.
Btw thanks for calling me Johnny, that was my nickname when I was a young'un and it brings back some neato memories.
So, when you were young you were already using the Mytton alias? :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
When LNs resort to attacking somebody who disagrees with them, it only means they have no evidence to support their claims.
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTzWqhFq/Ron-Reiland-footage.gif)
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PqJWBNrp/Cadigan-20-Hidell-selective-negative.jpg)
The whole thing is fishy on me.(sic)
Your biased opinions are irrelevant!
(https://i.postimg.cc/tJjVWYHY/fishy.jpg)
Fishy on me?
(https://i.redd.it/tcwgs8z3two81.gif)
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
-
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.
-
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTzWqhFq/Ron-Reiland-footage.gif)
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.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PqJWBNrp/Cadigan-20-Hidell-selective-negative.jpg)
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? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
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.
-
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.
-
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!”
-
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?
-
Thumb1:
Thanks Bill, I missed that one. :D
Btw I'm enjoying the Jacket debate over at the Ed Forum and even though Greg Doudna has a lot of ideas I don't agree with, he conducts himself like a gentleman and the fact that he fights for Ruth Paine in that World of slander and lies is encouraging.
JohnM
I agree 100%. I actually like Doudna. He twists the known evidence into something it isn't but you're right, he seems to be a class act. He and I exchange the occasional private message and are civil to each other. I've told him more than once that I admire his passion.
-
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.
Hilarious... yet another one who failed to mention any of this is an official report.
(Again) But it's acceptable that neither Westbrook or Barrett "mentioned any of this in an official report"?
Hill, Bentley, et al didn't mention the Hidell identification in an official report, so it didn't happen.
Westbrook and Barrett didn't mention any Hidell identification on the scene in an official report but that's okay, it still happened.
-
But Weidmann when are you going to actually prove any of your allegations because otherwise your opinion about what you think should happen and your vivid imagination is just paranoid rubbish which proves nothing!
You’re the one who makes allegations and based them on “cop who wasn’t even there said so”. What allegations did Martin make, other than that your claims are rubbish?
-
You always want to make it personal and attack the messenger, as if that somehow proves your case but the rock solid evidence, advanced scientific examination, expert forensic analysis and the lack of any proven conspiracy is and always will be what history remembers.
It’s not an “attack”. You’ve provided no basis whatsoever for calling these things “lies”.
Maybe if any CT can point to a feasible alternate narrative then perhaps the real World might listen
- you’re not the real world
- you don’t listen
- an alternative isn’t necessary when you haven’t demonstrated that your contrived scenario is correct in the first place. You don’t just automatically win by default.
-
Seriously? The testimony from multiple diverse eyewitnesses has been provided, if you don't believe it because of your nonsensical bias then that's your problem.
Wrong. The only thing you quoted that claimed that Oswald “admitted” anything about the ID was Leavelle, who wasn’t even at the interrogations. Typical “Mytton” dishonest spin.
-
Weidmann's only reason for his insane allegations comes from this 1 man who tried to remember a single fact from decades previous.
But something that Paul Bentley supposedly said decades later to Sneed is A-OK with “Mytton”.
-
(Again) But it's acceptable that neither Westbrook or Barrett "mentioned any of this in an official report"?
Hill, Bentley, et al didn't mention the Hidell identification in an official report, so it didn't happen.
Westbrook and Barrett didn't mention any Hidell identification on the scene in an official report but that's okay, it still happened.
(Again) But it's acceptable that neither Westbrook or Barrett "mentioned any of this in an official report"?
Acceptable? No of course not. At least not in Westbrook's case.
Barrett, on the other hand, had no reason to put anything about the wallet in a report. He didn't find it, never examined it's content and the Tippit crime scene was not FBI jurisdiction (yet). In fact, Barrett was merely present when Westbrook examined the wallet and he was asked if he knew either Oswald or Hidell. So, what was there for him to report, except perhaps that a DPD officer asked him if he knew anybody going by either those names?
Hill, Bentley, et al didn't mention the Hidell identification in an official report, so it didn't happen.
Well let me put it like this; how can somebody write a report about finding something that actually wasn't there? If such a vital piece of information had been in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, wouldn't you expect there to be a report?
Westbrook and Barrett didn't mention any Hidell identification on the scene in an official report but that's okay, it still happened.
Already answered. Westbrook needs to be in the same group as Hill and Bentley, as he also failed to report the Hidell ID.
There was no need for Barrett to file a report on being asked a simple question. Barrett went with Westbrook in the car but was not part of the investigation. He merely observed. Expecting a report from Barrett would be the same as expecting one from Callaway.
-
(Again) But it's acceptable that neither Westbrook or Barrett "mentioned any of this in an official report"?
Acceptable? No of course not. At least not in Westbrook's case.
Barrett, on the other hand, had no reason to put anything about the wallet in a report. He didn't find it, never examined it's content and the Tippit crime scene was not FBI jurisdiction (yet). In fact, Barrett was merely present when Westbrook examined the wallet and he was asked if he knew either Oswald or Hidell. So, what was there for him to report, except perhaps that a DPD officer asked him if he knew anybody going by either those names?
Hill, Bentley, et al didn't mention the Hidell identification in an official report, so it didn't happen.
Well let me put it like this; how can somebody write a report about finding something that actually wasn't there? If such a vital piece of information had been in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, wouldn't you expect there to be a report?
Westbrook and Barrett didn't mention any Hidell identification on the scene in an official report but that's okay, it still happened.
Already answered. Westbrook needs to be in the same group as Hill and Bentley, as he also failed to report the Hidell ID.
There was no need for Barrett to file a report on being asked a simple question. Barrett went with Westbrook in the car but was not part of the investigation. He merely observed. Expecting a report from Barrett would be the same as expecting one from Callaway.
If such a vital piece of information had been in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, wouldn't you expect there to be a report?
The same can be said for Westbrook, who is the person who supposedly saw the identifications inside the wallet and asked Barrett if he was familiar with the two names. To this day, there has never been anything from Westbrook surface which mentions such a thing took place at the scene.
There was no need for Barrett to file a report on being asked a simple question. Barrett went with Westbrook in the car but was not part of the investigation. He merely observed.
We'll have to agree to disagree, re: whether or not Barrett should have mentioned in his report that a wallet at the scene contained identifications for both Oswald and Hidell. I think you're dismissing the point that Barrett would have mentioned such an important item in his report. It was more than being asked only "a simple question".
Picture it like this...
Once the day is concluding, Barrett writes his report (which he did do). Obviously, the alleged assassin is in custody and by now everyone knows his name. A wallet was found at the scene which contained identifications inside for both Oswald and Hidell. If such a thing happened, Barrett mentions it in the report. He didn't.
-
The same can be said for Westbrook, who is the person who supposedly saw the identifications inside the wallet and asked Barrett if he was familiar with the two names. To this day, there has never been anything from Westbrook surface which mentions such a thing took place at the scene.
Yes, I agree. Westbrook is a highly dubious individual, IMO. He was not only involved in the wallet issue, but also the white/gray jacket farce.
We'll have to agree to disagree, re: whether or not Barrett should have mentioned in his report that a wallet at the scene contained identifications for both Oswald and Hidell. I think you're dismissing the point that Barrett would have mentioned such an important item in his report. It was more than being asked only "a simple question".
So, you believe that Barrett was part of the investigation, despite the fact that the FBI had no jurisdiction? I'm not dismissing anything. You expect that Barrett wrote a report and it should have included the question being asked? Really? Have you read Barrett's report on what happened at the Tippit crime scene?
It was more than being asked only "a simple question".
Asking somebody if he knows a couple of names is not "a simple question"? Why?
I think you're dismissing the point that Barrett would have mentioned such an important item in his report.
So, in your opinion, Barrett, an observer, should have been so much aware it was an important item that he would have put it in his report? But the same doesn't apply to Bentley, Hill, Carroll and Westbrook, who were actually involved in the investigation?
Picture it like this...
Once the day is concluding, Barrett writes his report (which he did do). Obviously, the alleged assassin is in custody and by now everyone knows his name. A wallet was found at the scene which contained identifications inside for both Oswald and Hidell. If such a thing happened, Barrett mentions it in the report. He didn't.
Nice assumptions. First you assume that Barrett had reason to report about what happened at the Tippit scene and secondly you assume that Barrett knew about Oswald's name and that he was aware of the fact that Hidell was a fake alias used by Oswald. Thirdly, you assume that Barrett could have stated what the content of the wallet was, when in fact he never held it or examined it.
All he really knew was (1) there was a wallet and (2) Westbrook asked him if he knew a guy named Oswald or a guy named Hidell. And you expect him to write this in a report?
Barrett writes his report (which he did do)
I have actually never seen Barrett's report for 11/22/63. Can you point me to where I can find it?
-
Mr. BALL. Were you given an assignment as soon as you got down there?
Mr. STOVALL. No, sir; I wasn't--as soon as I got there. I got there and one of my partners, G. F. Rose, got there about the same time. We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember what was said to him and what he said to you?
Mr. STOVALL. I don't recall exactly--I went in and asked him for his identification, asked him who he was and he said his name was Lee Oswald, as well as I remember. Rose and I were both in there at the time. He had his billfold and in it he had the identification of "A. Hidell," which was on a selective service card, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. That's [spelling] H-i-d-e-l-l, isn't it?.
Mr. STOVALL. I'm not positive on that--I believe it was [spelling] H-i-d-e-l-l, I'm not sure. And he also had identification of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I believe that was on a Social Security card and at that time Captain Fritz opened the door to the office there and sent Rose and I to go out to this address in Irving at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving. That was--I don't know where the Captain got the address, but it was an address where he was supposed to be staying part of the time.
-
Mr. BALL. Were you given an assignment as soon as you got down there?
Mr. STOVALL. No, sir; I wasn't--as soon as I got there. I got there and one of my partners, G. F. Rose, got there about the same time. We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember what was said to him and what he said to you?
Mr. STOVALL. I don't recall exactly--I went in and asked him for his identification, asked him who he was and he said his name was Lee Oswald, as well as I remember. Rose and I were both in there at the time. He had his billfold and in it he had the identification of "A. Hidell," which was on a selective service card, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. That's [spelling] H-i-d-e-l-l, isn't it?.
Mr. STOVALL. I'm not positive on that--I believe it was [spelling] H-i-d-e-l-l, I'm not sure. And he also had identification of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I believe that was on a Social Security card and at that time Captain Fritz opened the door to the office there and sent Rose and I to go out to this address in Irving at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving. That was--I don't know where the Captain got the address, but it was an address where he was supposed to be staying part of the time.
These quotes are going nowhere fast;
Stovall is contradicting Rose;
Mr. STOVALL. I don't recall exactly--I went in and asked him for his identification, asked him who he was and he said his name was Lee Oswald
Mr. ROSE. Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you it was Hidell?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; he did.
And he does it again;
Mr. STOVALL. [ ] Rose and I were both in there at the time. He had his billfold and in it he had the identification of "A. Hidell," which was on a selective service card, as well as I remember.
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.
So who is this "he" that Stovall said had his billfold?
These guys are all over the place....
-
I agree 100%. I actually like Doudna. He twists the known evidence into something it isn't but you're right, he seems to be a class act. He and I exchange the occasional private message and are civil to each other. I've told him more than once that I admire his passion.
It's good that he's passionate about his beliefs but doesn't get hysterical when someone doesn't agree with his opinions, some CT's could learn a thing or two from the way he conducts himself.
Another CT who is clearly a logical thinker is Jonathon Cohen who argues against the "everything is faked" mentality, for example it's obvious that there was no hole in the back of Kennedy's head and cites the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos to support his scientific analysis, very refreshing.
JohnM
-
The same can be said for Westbrook, who is the person who supposedly saw the identifications inside the wallet and asked Barrett if he was familiar with the two names. To this day, there has never been anything from Westbrook surface which mentions such a thing took place at the scene.
We'll have to agree to disagree, re: whether or not Barrett should have mentioned in his report that a wallet at the scene contained identifications for both Oswald and Hidell. I think you're dismissing the point that Barrett would have mentioned such an important item in his report. It was more than being asked only "a simple question".
Picture it like this...
Once the day is concluding, Barrett writes his report (which he did do). Obviously, the alleged assassin is in custody and by now everyone knows his name. A wallet was found at the scene which contained identifications inside for both Oswald and Hidell. If such a thing happened, Barrett mentions it in the report. He didn't.
That sums it up perfectly, if the Hidell wallet was at the Tippit crime scene Barrett and/or Westbrook would have put it in their reports but neither did simply because the Hidell wallet was never there.
And as has been pointed out numerous times, why supress the Wallet that links Oswald with the Tippit murder, I have yet to see a reasonable explanation that explains why.
If indeed there was a provable Hidell wallet at the Tippit crime scene, I would be all over it because I don't find it odd that Oswald would have two wallets for two identifications.
A decoy wallet, muggers wallet or a drop wallet isn't exactly a new concept.
Anyway I've wasted too much time with this silly theory that doesn't even pass the most basic sniff test, so unless someone comes up with something new I'm outta here!
JohnM
-
That sums it up perfectly, if the Hidell wallet was at the Tippit crime scene Barrett and/or Westbrook would have put it in their reports but neither did simply because the Hidell wallet was never there.
And as has been pointed out numerous times, why supress the Wallet that links Oswald with the Tippit murder, I have yet to see a reasonable explanation that explains why.
If indeed there was a provable Hidell wallet at the Tippit crime scene, I would be all over it because I don't find it odd that Oswald would have two wallets for two identifications.
A decoy wallet, muggers wallet or a drop wallet isn't exactly a new concept.
Anyway I've wasted too much time with this silly theory that doesn't even pass the most basic sniff test, so unless someone comes up with something new I'm outta here!
JohnM
if the Hidell wallet was at the Tippit crime scene Barrett and/or Westbrook would have put it in their reports but neither did simply because the Hidell wallet was never there.
if the Hidell ID was in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car, Bentley, Hill and Carroll would have put it in their reports by none of them did because the Hidell ID was not in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald.
And as has been pointed out numerous times, why supress the Wallet that links Oswald with the Tippit murder, I have yet to see a reasonable explanation that explains why.
A reasonable explanation that you would accept simply doesn't exist.
Anyway I've wasted too much time with this silly theory that doesn't even pass the most basic sniff test, so unless someone comes up with something new I'm outta here!
Does this mean you are unable to answer my question?
Anyway, close the door behind you.... Bye. Thumb1:
-
That sums it up perfectly, if the Hidell wallet was at the Tippit crime scene Barrett and/or Westbrook would have put it in their reports but neither did simply because the Hidell wallet was never there.
And as has been pointed out numerous times, why supress the Wallet that links Oswald with the Tippit murder, I have yet to see a reasonable explanation that explains why.
If indeed there was a provable Hidell wallet at the Tippit crime scene, I would be all over it because I don't find it odd that Oswald would have two wallets for two identifications.
A decoy wallet, muggers wallet or a drop wallet isn't exactly a new concept.
Anyway I've wasted too much time with this silly theory that doesn't even pass the most basic sniff test, so unless someone comes up with something new I'm outta here!
JohnM
Yes, and a wallet found at the crime scene would have significantly more incriminatory value than a wallet taken from a suspect. The recovery of the wallet from the crime scene would have significant evidentiary value in itself. That would have been a fact that they would have reported and broadcast to the world.
-
Yes, and a wallet found at the crime scene would have significantly more incriminatory value than a wallet taken from a suspect. The recovery of the wallet from the crime scene would have significant evidentiary value in itself. That would have been a fact that they would have reported and broadcast to the world.
a wallet found at the crime scene would have significantly more incriminatory value than a wallet taken from a suspect.
Why? Does such a wallet somehow prove that the owner of that wallet shot Tippit or was even at the scene himself?
The real purpose of a wallet being dropped at the Tippit scene (if that's what happened) is to provide a link between Oswald and Hidell and the ordering of the revolver and the rifle. It doesn't matter where the Hidell ID was found, as long as it was indeed found.
-
Yes, I agree. Westbrook is a highly dubious individual, IMO. He was not only involved in the wallet issue, but also the white/gray jacket farce.
So, you believe that Barrett was part of the investigation, despite the fact that the FBI had no jurisdiction? I'm not dismissing anything. You expect that Barrett wrote a report and it should have included the question being asked? Really? Have you read Barrett's report on what happened at the Tippit crime scene?
It was more than being asked only "a simple question".
Asking somebody if he knows a couple of names is not "a simple question"? Why?
I think you're dismissing the point that Barrett would have mentioned such an important item in his report.
So, in your opinion, Barrett, an observer, should have been so much aware it was an important item that he would have put it in his report? But the same doesn't apply to Bentley, Hill, Carroll and Westbrook, who were actually involved in the investigation?
Nice assumptions. First you assume that Barrett had reason to report about what happened at the Tippit scene and secondly you assume that Barrett knew about Oswald's name and that he was aware of the fact that Hidell was a fake alias used by Oswald. Thirdly, you assume that Barrett could have stated what the content of the wallet was, when in fact he never held it or examined it.
All he really knew was (1) there was a wallet and (2) Westbrook asked him if he knew a guy named Oswald or a guy named Hidell. And you expect him to write this in a report?
Barrett writes his report (which he did do)
I have actually never seen Barrett's report for 11/22/63. Can you point me to where I can find it?
I have actually never seen Barrett's report for 11/22/63. Can you point me to where I can find it?
I'll try to find it.
-
I'll try to find it.
Thanks, I'll keep looking as well
-
According to James Hosty, on page 67 of his book “Assignment Oswald”, an ID with the name A.J. Hidell was found in LHO’s wallet when he was arrested in New Orleans in 1963. Is there any supporting evidence of this in the files of either the New Orleans Police Department or the FBI?
When Quigley sat down across from Lee, Oswald made a number of self-serving statements about his activities with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, telling Quigley it was his patriotic duty as an American to distribute the flyers because Americans needed to back off Cuba. It soon became apparent to Quigley that Oswald was holding back: he refused to answer many of Quigley’s questions about the pro-Castro committee, and was increasingly evasive about the identification found in his wallet for one A. J. Hidell. Because Quigley was unfamiliar with Oswald, the interview was completely unproductive. The following week, when he wrote up his report, he noticed that his office had an active file on Lee Oswald, so he routed his report to that file.
If there is supporting evidence that LHO was carrying an A.J. Hidell I.D in his wallet when he was arrested in New Orleans, I think that it would tend to support the DPD officers’ testimony that LHO was carrying one in his wallet when he was arrested in Dallas on 11/22/63.
-
Thanks, I'll keep looking as well
On a tip from Dale Myers...
CD 5, pages 84-85. Try the Mary Ferrell site.
-
On a tip from Dale Myers...
CD 5, pages 84-85. Try the Mary Ferrell site.
Found it. He doesn't go into great detail beyond his movements and observations.
I found something else as well; in a memo written to Mr. Conrad and several other high ranking FBI officials, W.D. Griffith writes that ASAC Dallas Kyle G. Clark has learned from the DPD that they forgot to photograph Oswald's wallet and it's content. They (the DPD) request that they be furnished with photographs of those items.
According to the memo, the wallet contained photographs of Oswald, his wife and a baby, as well as various Civil Service, Social Security and other identification cards. What isn't mentioned is a fake Hidell ID card.
There is a photograph of the photographs and ID cards that were in the wallet;
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/11/article-0-193E760B000005DC-816_634x422.jpg)
Guess what's missing?
-
Very interesting, Martin. Thanks!
-
Bentley wrote: "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest." "Identification" is, of course, much more specific than "information."
Bla bla bla... your desperate need to score a minor point is duly noted.
"Turned over" implies a physical transfer. The only physical identification that Bentley could have turned over is what he took from Oswald,
Sure, and what exactly did Bentley turn over? He said it himself; "his identification", meaning of course Oswald's. Not a word about Hidell. Now, isn't that strange? Not a word about there being ID's in two different names and not knowing which one is the correct name. Nothing, nada, zero....
I didn't imagine that FBI agent Barrett said there was a wallet at the Tippit scene and that Westbrook asked him about Oswald and Hidell, did I? I also didn't imagine that Ron Reiland said it was a wallet (which he mistakenly believed belonged to Tippit), did I?
Did I imagine that none of the four officers who were with Oswald in the car said anything about a Hidell ID being in Oswald's wallet and that there is no DPD report that mentions finding such a vital piece of evidence?
Did I imagine that only Hill and Carroll made very vague comments about the Hidell ID in their WC testimony, some six months later, and that the WC didn't even call Bentley (the man who actually inspected the wallet) to testify about finding the Hidell ID? That would be the same Hill, btw, who also screwed up the chain of custody for the revolver, but that's another issue.
There is no evidentiary case to show that the Hidell ID was in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald, but there most certainly is a circumstantial case (not a very strong one, I'll grant you that) that there was indeed a wallet found at the Tippit scene which contained Oswald's ID and the fake Hidell ID.
So, given this, yes I do think you should at least try to prove me wrong with something a bit more than assumptions about what was in the wallet Bentley gave to Baker and when he gave it to him.
Who? Oh you mean Bentley.... sure he knew better what he did that day than I do. He just failed miserably in communicating what he did and when he did it.
No, I'm simply saying that there are police procedures about how to handle evidence. There should at least be a conclusive chain of custody, starting with the person who actually found the item and there should be at least one report about the circumstances of the discovery. But wait, I just realized who I am talking to... now you are going to try to turn this into a pages long go nowhere discussion about police procedures, right? Well don't...because I am not going to go there.
Yes I do know that. It makes no difference. Your quote from Bentley's report made it clear that he turned over "his identification" to Lt. Baker and then he went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest. In other words, he gave the "identification" to Baker when he left the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose, at that time, was already talking to Oswald!
The crux of your position is summarized by two statements. The first is:
No, I'm simply saying that there are police procedures about how to handle evidence. There should at least be a conclusive chain of custody, starting with the person who actually found the item and there should be at least one report about the circumstances of the discovery.
The problem is, the existence of any particular procedure that you presume to exist in this particular matter is liable to be just that: nothing more than your own presumption. I don't really know what level of detail period-correct DPD police officers would have been expected to give in their reports. I don't thiyou do, either.
You then fall back on the ole standby: appeal to chain of custody, witch you habitually repeat as mantra at the scantest hint of ambiguity. Just like any other 2nd rate prison lawyer. Here too, I keep getting the feeling that you don't actually know how that part really worked, either.
Your second statement is:
Your quote from Bentley's report made it clear that he turned over "his identification" to Lt. Baker and then he went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest. In other words, he gave the "identification" to Baker when he left the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose, at that time, was already talking to Oswald!
Bentley's account on this point is pretty terse:
I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
We only know that Bentley gave Baker the IDs (in whatever form) at some point before proceeding to Westbrook's office, but don't don't know how much time passed between Bentley showing up at the Robbery and Homicide office, Bentley handing over the ID, and Bentley leaving. Further, there is nothing in Bentley's report that directly relates when Oswald was turned over to when the ID was turned over. Bentley arrived with Oswald, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker. Like Bentley, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker brought Oswald to the Robbery and Homicide Bureau office. Walker stayed in Fritz's office with Oswald, McDonald left to have his injuries checked, while Hill and Carrol proceeded to Westbrook's office to do some report writing.
Hill's and Carrol's trajectory through City Hall matched Bentley's, and that the three arrived together in the first place. The implication should be clear: Bentley arrived in the Homicide office with Oswald, and turned over Oswald's ID's at the same time as their owner's
In short, the idea that Bentley cold not have turned over the ID's before Gus Rose got them from the unnamed officer is simply a fantasy.
-
The crux of your position is summarized by two statements. The first is:
No, I'm simply saying that there are police procedures about how to handle evidence. There should at least be a conclusive chain of custody, starting with the person who actually found the item and there should be at least one report about the circumstances of the discovery.
The problem is, the existence of any particular procedure that you presume to exist in this particular matter is liable to be just that: nothing more than your own presumption. I don't really know what level of detail period-correct DPD police officers would have been expected to give in their reports. I don't thiyou do, either.
You then fall back on the ole standby: appeal to chain of custody, witch you habitually repeat as mantra at the scantest hint of ambiguity. Just like any other 2nd rate prison lawyer. Here too, I keep getting the feeling that you don't actually know how that part really worked, either.
Your second statement is:
Your quote from Bentley's report made it clear that he turned over "his identification" to Lt. Baker and then he went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest. In other words, he gave the "identification" to Baker when he left the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose, at that time, was already talking to Oswald!
Bentley's account on this point is pretty terse:
I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest.
We only know that Bentley gave Baker the IDs (in whatever form) at some point before proceeding to Westbrook's office, but don't don't know how much time passed between Bentley showing up at the Robbery and Homicide office, Bentley handing over the ID, and Bentley leaving. Further, there is nothing in Bentley's report that directly relates when Oswald was turned over to when the ID was turned over. Bentley arrived with Oswald, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker. Like Bentley, Hill, Carrol, McDonald, and Walker brought Oswald to the Robbery and Homicide Bureau office. Walker stayed in Fritz's office with Oswald, McDonald left to have his injuries checked, while Hill and Carrol proceeded to Westbrook's office to do some report writing.
Hill's and Carrol's trajectory through City Hall matched Bentley's, and that the three arrived together in the first place. The implication should be clear: Bentley arrived in the Homicide office with Oswald, and turned over Oswald's ID's at the same time as their owner's
In short, the idea that Bentley cold not have turned over the ID's before Gus Rose got them from the unnamed officer is simply a fantasy.
I'll give you a bit of time to correct all your spelling mistakes and will only make this comment for now;
The sequence of events is pretty easy; Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him, having just arrived moments earlier. As soon as Oswald is brought in Rose talked to him;
Mr. BALL. Where did you go to work?
Mr. ROSE. I reported to the homicide office. It's room 317 at the city hall.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go then?
Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?
During that conversation Rose already had the wallet with two ID's in them;
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out."
And Rose got the billfold containing the two ID's from "someone";
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.
If that somebody had been Baker he would have recognized him.
So, now you try to fit in the "Bentley giving Baker the billfold" narrative....
This should be fun!
-
You then fall back on the ole standby: appeal to chain of custody, witch you habitually repeat as mantra at the scantest hint of ambiguity. Just like any other 2nd rate prison lawyer. Here too, I keep getting the feeling that you don't actually know how that part really worked, either.
“Scantest hint of ambiguity” has got to be the most dishonest characterization ever of unauthenticatable evidence.
-
I'll give you a bit of time to correct all your spelling mistakes and will only make this comment for now;
The sequence of events is pretty easy; Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him, having just arrived moments earlier. As soon as Oswald is brought in Rose talked to him;
Mr. BALL. Where did you go to work?
Mr. ROSE. I reported to the homicide office. It's room 317 at the city hall.
Mr. BALL. Where did you go then?
Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?
During that conversation Rose already had the wallet with two ID's in them;
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out."
And Rose got the billfold containing the two ID's from "someone";
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.
If that somebody had been Baker he would have recognized him.
So, now you try to fit in the "Bentley giving Baker the billfold" narrative....
This should be fun!
Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him, having just arrived moments earlier
By Rose's own account, Oswald was already sitting during this initial conversation. He'd been there for a bit. Rose wasn't waiting for him. If anything it was the other way around. This is seen clearly in the testimony of Rose's partner, Rick Stovall:
Mr. STOVALL. No, sir; I wasn't--as soon as I got there. I got there and one of my partners, G. F. Rose, got there about the same time. We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.
There was plenty of opportunity for a wallet to get from Bentley to Rose via at least one intermediary, so this latest line of argument goes nowhere.
If that somebody had been Baker he would have recognized him.
You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part. It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory.
-
Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him, having just arrived moments earlier
By Rose's own account, Oswald was already sitting during this initial conversation. He'd been there for a bit. Rose wasn't waiting for him. If anything it was the other way around. This is seen clearly in the testimony of Rose's partner, Rick Stovall:
Mr. STOVALL. No, sir; I wasn't--as soon as I got there. I got there and one of my partners, G. F. Rose, got there about the same time. We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.
There was plenty of opportunity for a wallet to get from Bentley to Rose via at least one intermediary, so this latest line of argument goes nowhere.
Talk about desperation.
Rose wasn't waiting for him. If anything it was the other way around.
Nobody said that Rose was waiting for him. Rose himself told the WC he was brought in a few minutes after he [Rose] got there.
Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?
Stoval doesn't even contradict him;
While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.
There was plenty of opportunity for a wallet to get from Bentley to Rose via at least one intermediary, so this latest line of argument goes nowhere.
Nope. According to Stovall, he and Rose were talking to somebody who saw and knew nothing. They did not take an affidavit from that person. They had no need to spend much time with that person after Oswald was brought in. You are desperately trying to make it sound as if both men would still spend minutes with a persom who saw and knew nothing before turning to Oswald. That simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
However, Bentley said in his report that he was first in the Homicide bureau and then gave the "identification" to Baker when he went to Captain Westbrook's office. That clearly implies he did not give, whatever it was he gave him, straight away.
If that somebody had been Baker he would have recognized him.
You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part. It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory.
What an hilarious selfserving argument to make . Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.
You really need better quality arguments than this. You are the one making all the assumptions. I'm actually going by what the men themselves said. Care to try again?
-
I'm actually going by what the men themselves said.
Nice, let's see what the men themselves said.
The men in the squad car 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.
Mr. BELIN. Was he ever asked his name?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; he was asked his name.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give his name?
Mr. CARROLL. He gave, the best I recall, I wasn't able to look closely, but the best I recall, he gave two names, I think. I don't recall what the other one was.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give two names? Or did someone in the car read from the identification?
Mr. CARROLL. Someone in the car may have read from the identification. I know two names, the best I recall, were mentioned.
Then we have The Chief of Police, The Captain of the Dallas Police Department, US Postal Inspector, A Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Dallas Police officers who all said that Oswald was questioned about the Hidell Identification. And several of these men said that Oswald admitted carrying the Hidell ID.
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. BELIN. All right, what else?
Mr. HOLMES. In his billfold the police had found a draft registration card in the name of A. J. Hidell on his person at the time of his arrest, and I had seen it.
......
Mr. BELIN. Was anything in that room--was he asked about knowing Alek Hidell? Or anything about Alek Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. I brought it up first as to did he ever have a package sent to him from anywhere. I said, "Did you receive mail through this box 2915 under the name of any other name than Lee Oswald," and he said, "Absolutely not."
"What about a package to an A. J. Hidell?"
He said, "No."
"Well, did you order a gun in that name to come there?"
"No, absolutely not."
"Had one come under that name, could this fellow have gotten it?"
He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is possible she could have."
"Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."
I showed him the box rental application for the post office box in New Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?"
And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell."
"Well, I don't know anything about that."
That is all he would say about it.
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.
Mr. BALL. Another thing, that day, at sometime during the 22d when you questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his pocket with the name Alek Hidell?
Mr. FRITZ. I did; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you ask him about that?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe he had three of those cards if I remember correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was the Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or something.
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. BALL. He didn't tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out." And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask a question? What was Oswald's attitude toward the police? Have you any comment on that?
Mr. CURRY - The only things I heard him say, he was very arrogant. He was very--he had a dislike for authority, it seemed, of anyone. He denied anything you asked him. I heard them ask once or twice if this was his picture or something, he said, "I don't know what you are talking about. No; it is not my picture," and this was a picture of him holding a rifle or something. I remember one time they showed him and he denied that being him.
I remember he denied anything knowing anything about a man named Hidell that he had this identification in his pocket or in his notebook, and I believe a postal inspector was in this room at the time, too, and someone asked him about the fact that he had a post office box in the name of Hidell and he didn't know anything about that. He just didn't know anything about anything.
(https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1553876427-id.JPG)
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Nice, let's see what the men themselves said.
The men in the squad car 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.
Mr. BELIN. Was he ever asked his name?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; he was asked his name.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give his name?
Mr. CARROLL. He gave, the best I recall, I wasn't able to look closely, but the best I recall, he gave two names, I think. I don't recall what the other one was.
Mr. BELIN. Did he give two names? Or did someone in the car read from the identification?
Mr. CARROLL. Someone in the car may have read from the identification. I know two names, the best I recall, were mentioned.
Then we have The Chief of Police, The Captain of the Dallas Police Department, US Postal Inspector, A Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Dallas Police officers who all said that Oswald was questioned about the Hidell Identification. And several of these men said that Oswald admitted carrying the Hidell ID.
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. BELIN. All right, what else?
Mr. HOLMES. In his billfold the police had found a draft registration card in the name of A. J. Hidell on his person at the time of his arrest, and I had seen it.
......
Mr. BELIN. Was anything in that room--was he asked about knowing Alek Hidell? Or anything about Alek Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. I brought it up first as to did he ever have a package sent to him from anywhere. I said, "Did you receive mail through this box 2915 under the name of any other name than Lee Oswald," and he said, "Absolutely not."
"What about a package to an A. J. Hidell?"
He said, "No."
"Well, did you order a gun in that name to come there?"
"No, absolutely not."
"Had one come under that name, could this fellow have gotten it?"
He said, "Nobody got mail out of that box but me; no, sir." "Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got mail, but it is possible she could have."
"Well, who is A. J. Hidell?" I asked him.
And he said, "I don't know any such person."
I showed him the box rental application for the post office box in New Orleans and I read from it. I said, "Here this shows as being able to receive, being entitled to receive mail is Marina Oswald." And he said, "Well, that is my wife, so what?"
And I said also it says "A. J. Hidell."
"Well, I don't know anything about that."
That is all he would say about it.
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.
Mr. BALL. Another thing, that day, at sometime during the 22d when you questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his pocket with the name Alek Hidell?
Mr. FRITZ. I did; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you ask him about that?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe he had three of those cards if I remember correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was the Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or something.
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. BALL. He didn't tell you it was Oswald?
Mr. ROSE. No; he didn't, not right then--he did later. In a minute--I found two cards--I found a card that said "A. Hidell." And I found another card that said "Lee Oswald" on it, and I asked him which of the two was his correct name. He wouldn't tell me at the time, he just said, "You find out." And then in just a few minutes Captain Fritz came in and he told me to get two men and go to Irving and search his house.
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask a question? What was Oswald's attitude toward the police? Have you any comment on that?
Mr. CURRY - The only things I heard him say, he was very arrogant. He was very--he had a dislike for authority, it seemed, of anyone. He denied anything you asked him. I heard them ask once or twice if this was his picture or something, he said, "I don't know what you are talking about. No; it is not my picture," and this was a picture of him holding a rifle or something. I remember one time they showed him and he denied that being him.
I remember he denied anything knowing anything about a man named Hidell that he had this identification in his pocket or in his notebook, and I believe a postal inspector was in this room at the time, too, and someone asked him about the fact that he had a post office box in the name of Hidell and he didn't know anything about that. He just didn't know anything about anything.
(https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1553876427-id.JPG)
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
Thumb1:
JohnM
Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion.
-
Thank you for sharing your flawed opinion.
I didn't give an opinion, can't you get anything right, Dumbass!
JohnM
-
I didn't give an opinion, can't you get anything right, Dumbass!
JohnM
Of course you did.
But thanks for sharing it nevertheless.
-
Nice, let's see what the men themselves said.
“I don’t remember”
“I couldn’t say specifically”
“Best I recall”
“I don’t recall”
“I am not certain”
“I believe”
“If I remember correctly”
“A social security card or something”
“As best my knowledge”
“In his pocket or in his notebook”
“Someone asked him”
By the time these guys testified, months later, the Hidell story was firmly implanted in the law enforcement grapevine, group-think psyche.
-
“I don’t remember”
“I couldn’t say specifically”
“Best I recall”
“I don’t recall”
“I am not certain”
“I believe”
“If I remember correctly”
“A social security card or something”
“As best my knowledge”
“In his pocket or in his notebook”
“Someone asked him”
By the time these guys testified, months later, the Hidell story was firmly implanted in the law enforcement grapevine, group-think psyche.
Spot on. We already discussed most of this nonsense testimony recently, but either "Mytton" has fallen behind and is not aware of it or it's just another case of rinse, wash and repeat because of the total lack of a better argument.
Only Hill and Carroll were actually in the car with Oswald, when Bentley took his wallet and none of them said a word about a second ID for months.
What guys like Mytton will never be able to deal with is this;
In a memo written on 11/29/63, to Mr. Conrad and several other high ranking FBI officials, W.D. Griffith states that ASAC Dallas Kyle G. Clark has learned from the DPD that they forgot to photograph Oswald's wallet and it's content. They (the DPD) request that they be furnished with photographs of those items.
According to the memo, the wallet contained photographs of Oswald, his wife and a baby, as well as various Civil Service, Social Security and other identification cards. What isn't mentioned is a fake Hidell ID card.
There is a photograph of the photographs and ID cards that were in the wallet;
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/11/article-0-193E760B000005DC-816_634x422.jpg)
The fake Hidell ID is not there.
-
“I don’t remember”
“I couldn’t say specifically”
“Best I recall”
“I don’t recall”
“I am not certain”
“I believe”
“If I remember correctly”
“A social security card or something”
“As best my knowledge”
“In his pocket or in his notebook”
“Someone asked him”
By the time these guys testified, months later, the Hidell story was firmly implanted in the law enforcement grapevine, group-think psyche.
If the Hidell story was firmly implanted like you say, then we'd a bogus expect total recall but instead we have genuine memories, like the guys in the squad car don't specifically remember the name Hidell but distinctly remember that Oswald had more than one identification and thus solidifies their honesty.
"Law enforcement grapevine" LOL
"Group think psyche" LOL
JohnM
-
If the Hidell story was firmly implanted like you say, then we'd a bogus expect total recall but instead we have genuine memories, like the guys in the squad car don't specifically remember the name Hidell but distinctly remember that Oswald had more than one identification and thus solidifies their honesty.
"Law enforcement grapevine" LOL
"Group think psyche" LOL
JohnM
Another selfserving opinion. But thanks for sharing.
like the guys in the squad car don't specifically remember the name Hidell but distinctly remember that Oswald had more than one identification
Too bad they just collectively "forgot" to mention it to anybody for several months :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
If the Hidell story was firmly implanted like you say, then we'd a bogus expect total recall
Why would “we” expect that? The story was implanted, not any precise or consistent details. That’s how gossip works.
-
Spot on. We already discussed most of this nonsense testimony recently, but either "Mytton" has fallen behind and is not aware of it or it's just another case of rinse, wash and repeat because of the total lack of a better argument.
Only Hill and Carroll were actually in the car with Oswald, when Bentley took his wallet and none of them said a word about a second ID for months.
What guys like Mytton will never be able to deal with is this;
In a memo written on 11/29/63, to Mr. Conrad and several other high ranking FBI officials, W.D. Griffith states that ASAC Dallas Kyle G. Clark has learned from the DPD that they forgot to photograph Oswald's wallet and it's content. They (the DPD) request that they be furnished with photographs of those items.
According to the memo, the wallet contained photographs of Oswald, his wife and a baby, as well as various Civil Service, Social Security and other identification cards. What isn't mentioned is a fake Hidell ID card.
There is a photograph of the photographs and ID cards that were in the wallet;
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/11/article-0-193E760B000005DC-816_634x422.jpg)
The fake Hidell ID is not there.
That photo was clearly taken much much later and at a time when the idea of a Hidell ID was "firmly implanted", so exactly what do you think it proves???
JohnM
-
Why would “we” expect that? The story was implanted, not any precise or consistent details. That’s how gossip works.
You're all over the place, either the "Hidell Story" was firmly implanted or it wasn't?
JohnM
-
That photo was clearly taken much much later and at a time when the idea of a Hidell ID was "firmly implanted", so exactly what do you think it proves???
JohnM
That photo was clearly taken much much later
Insignificant. It was taken by the National Archives and shows the content of the wallet as they have it in storage. What reason would the National Archive have to omit the Hidell photo if it was indeed ever in that wallet?
But if you are so sure of yourself why don't you just produce the photo(s) the DPD received from the FBI after they forgot to photograph the wallet and the content before handing it over to the FBI?
And let's not forget the memo I referred to doesn't mention the Hidell ID either. If you had learned the evidence you would have known that.
-
You're all over the place, either the "Hidell Story" was firmly implanted or it wasn't?
JohnM
Expecting "total recall" after several months from two men who, for months, did not mention the Hidell ID being in the wallet at all is just plain stupid.
-
It appears to me that the photo of the contents of the wallet was taken of an exhibit of the actual items. This exhibit was in 2013. Speculation that these items represent a complete accounting of all that was in the wallet when LHO was arrested is pure speculation.
As part of a new exhibit called Three Shots Were Fired marking the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, the Newseum in Washington DC put on display several never-before-seen artifacts from that fateful day in November, including personal items that were in Oswald's possession on the day of his arrest.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307792/Inside-assassins-wallet-Never-seen-pictures-Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-personal-items-display.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307792/Inside-assassins-wallet-Never-seen-pictures-Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-personal-items-display.html)
-
It appears to me that the photo of the contents of the wallet was taken of an exhibit of the actual items. This exhibit was in 2013. Speculation that these items represent a complete accounting of all that was in the wallet when LHO was arrested is pure speculation.
That's exactly right, Charles. It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but....
-
The reality is that the Hidell ID wasn't even needed because yet another piece of evidence linking Oswald with his A J Hidell alias is the New Orleans post box application which was opened way back in June.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTCNWs4p/Cadigan-22-new-orleans-postal.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. How did you know about the use of the name A. J. Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. When the box was opened in the name of Lee H. Oswald. Because for two reasons. I---one is, when he rented the post office box in New Orleans, he used the name of A. J. Hidell as one of the persons entitled to receive mail in that box.
Mr. BELIN. At that time did you know about that?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. All right, what else?
Mr. HOLMES. In his billfold the police had found a draft registration card in the name of A. J. Hidell on his person at the time of his arrest, and I had seen it.
JohnM
-
It appears to me that the photo of the contents of the wallet was taken of an exhibit of the actual items. This exhibit was in 2013. Speculation that these items represent a complete accounting of all that was in the wallet when LHO was arrested is pure speculation.
As part of a new exhibit called Three Shots Were Fired marking the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, the Newseum in Washington DC put on display several never-before-seen artifacts from that fateful day in November, including personal items that were in Oswald's possession on the day of his arrest.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307792/Inside-assassins-wallet-Never-seen-pictures-Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-personal-items-display.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307792/Inside-assassins-wallet-Never-seen-pictures-Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-personal-items-display.html)
That's exactly right, Charles. It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but....
Why would they display the content of the wallet and leave out the most incriminating document?
Speculation that these items represent a complete accounting of all that was in the wallet when LHO was arrested is pure speculation.
Speculation that these items don't represent a complete accounting of all that was in the wallet when LHO was arrested is pure speculation.
But let's examine what we do know, shall we?
Paul Bentley takes the wallet from Oswald in the car and never mentions finding a Hidell ID. Not even in the report he wrote on December 3, 1963.
None of the other men in the car mention hearing Bentley say anything about finding an identificiation in another name than Oswald. They also do not mention it in their reports and during several months thereafter.
According to the FBI memo I have referred to, the DPD forgot to take pictures of the wallet and the content. They ask the FBI for photographs and mention photos of Marina and a baby and a few other items but they fail to mention the Hidell ID.
With all this in mind, just how likely is it that the fake Hidell ID was indeed in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald.
-
The reality is that the Hidell ID wasn't even needed because yet another piece of evidence linking Oswald with his A J Hidell alias is the New Orleans post box application which was opened way back in June.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTCNWs4p/Cadigan-22-new-orleans-postal.jpg)
Mr. BELIN. How did you know about the use of the name A. J. Hidell?
Mr. HOLMES. When the box was opened in the name of Lee H. Oswald. Because for two reasons. I---one is, when he rented the post office box in New Orleans, he used the name of A. J. Hidell as one of the persons entitled to receive mail in that box.
Mr. BELIN. At that time did you know about that?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. All right, what else?
Mr. HOLMES. In his billfold the police had found a draft registration card in the name of A. J. Hidell on his person at the time of his arrest, and I had seen it.
JohnM
You take stupidity to another level, John.
If Oswald was indeed manipulated by somebody he knew as A. Hidell, that manipulation would have started in Dallas, prior to his stay in New Orleans. If Oswald had already filled out the Kleins' order form etc as result of that manipulation, in early 1963, it wouldn't be strange for him to put Hidell's name on the p.o. box in New Orleans. He used that name of some of the leaflets as well. Hidell may well have been an alias, but one being used by the person who was setting Oswald up. You can dismiss that, but you can not conclusively rule that out.
You keep calling it the Hidell alias but it is in no way certain that's what it actually is. Calling it an alias, without considering other options, only shows that you have swallowed the result of the potential manipulation hook, line and sinker.
-
You take stupidity to another level, John.
If Oswald was indeed manipulated by somebody he knew as A. Hidell, that manipulation would have started in Dallas, prior to his stay in New Orleans. If Oswald had already filled out the Kleins' order form etc as result of that manipulation, in early 1963, it wouldn't be strange for him to put Hidell's name on the p.o. box in New Orleans. He used that name of some of the leaflets as well. Hidell may well have been an alias, but one being used by the person who was setting Oswald up. You can dismiss that, but you can not conclusively rule that out.
You keep calling it the Hidell alias but it is in no way certain that's what it actually is. Calling it an alias, with considering other options, only shows that you have swallowed the result of the potential manipulation hook, line and sinker.
You take stupidity to another level, John.
You're very predictable Martin, the level of aggressiveness of your opening salvo is inversely proportional to your level of confidence in your argument.
If Oswald was indeed manipulated by somebody he knew as A. Hidell, that manipulation would have started in Dallas, prior to his stay in New Orleans. If Oswald had already filled out the Kleins' order form etc as result of that manipulation, in early 1963, it wouldn't be strange for him to put Hidell's name on the p.o. box in New Orleans. He used that name of some of the leaflets as well. Hidell may well have been an alias, but one being used by the person who was setting Oswald up. You can dismiss that, but you can not conclusively rule that out.
And as predicted your argument is weak sauce, so from a point at least eight months before the assassination Oswald was manipulated into buying a rifle, buying a revolver, having his photo taken with a rifle and a revolver, handing out leaflets with the name Hidell, having and carrying a Hidell ID with his photo, accepting mail in New Orleans for A J Hidell, storing the retouched negatives that created the Hidell ID, coincidentally Alek was Oswald's nickname in Russia and when seeking employment in New Orleans, Oswald listed a "Sgt. Robt. Hidell" as a reference on one job application 39 and "George Hidell" as a reference on another and finally Hidell is obviously a play on Fidel(Oswald's hero).
You keep calling it the Hidell alias but it is in no way certain that's what it actually is. Calling it an alias, with considering other options, only shows that you have swallowed the result of the potential manipulation hook, line and sinker.
What other options can possibly cover all my above authentic examples?
Btw have you considered Aliens from Alpha Centauri, that's just as likely? Hehehe!
JohnM
-
You're very predictable Martin, the level of aggressiveness of your opening salvo is inversely proportional to your level of confidence in your argument.
And as predicted your argument is weak sauce, so from a point at least eight months before the assassination Oswald was manipulated into buying a rifle, buying a revolver, having his photo taken with a rifle and a revolver, handing out leaflets with the name Hidell, having and carrying a Hidell ID with his photo, accepting mail in New Orleans for A J Hidell, storing the retouched negatives that created the Hidell ID, coincidentally Alek was Oswald's nickname in Russia and when seeking employment in New Orleans, Oswald listed a "Sgt. Robt. Hidell" as a reference on one job application 39 and "George Hidell" as a reference on another and finally Hidell is obviously a play on Fidel(Oswald's hero).
What other options can possibly cover all my above authentic examples?
Btw have you considered Aliens from Alpha Centauri, that's just as likely? Hehehe!
JohnM
Thank for your sharing your predictable opinion.
-
Thank for your sharing your predictable opinion.
Wow, a Martin response without a vulgar insult, maybe there is hope for you. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Wow, a Martin response without a vulgar insult, maybe there is hope for you. Thumb1:
JohnM
Thank for your sharing your unpredictable opinion.
-
Thank for your sharing your unpredictable opinion.
OMG, two civil responses in a row, you're well on your way to being a Lner, welcome to the club!
JohnM
-
That's exactly right, Charles. It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but....
What really needs to be pointed out is that speculation is not allowed to be considered when considering whether or not there is reasonable doubt. Only evidence (exhibits, sworn testimony, etc.) which is allowed to be introduced at a trial is allowed for consideration. All the speculation, in all the books, articles, web forum posts, etc., that tries to entice the readers to have doubts about LHO’s guilt would not be allowed at a trial (including a jury room).
From the US Courts for the Ninth Circuit:
3.5 REASONABLE DOUBT—DEFINED
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.
If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty.
https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/338 (https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/338)
-
What really needs to be pointed out is that speculation is not allowed to be considered when considering whether or not there is reasonable doubt. Only evidence (exhibits, sworn testimony, etc.) which is allowed to be introduced at a trial is allowed for consideration. All the speculation, in all the books, articles, web forum posts, etc., that tries to entice the readers to have doubts about LHO’s guilt would not be allowed at a trial (including a jury room).
From the US Courts for the Ninth Circuit:
3.5 REASONABLE DOUBT—DEFINED
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.
If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty.
https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/338 (https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/338)
All the speculation, in all the books, articles, web forum posts, etc., that tries to entice the readers to have doubts about LHO’s guilt would not be allowed at a trial (including a jury room).
And the same goes of course for all the assumptions and speculations made to try to make at least some sort of coherent case against Oswald.
-
Sadly, some people mistake and try to classify reasonable inferences for speculation. Here is more, this time from the US Courts for the Fifth Circuit:
In considering the evidence, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the evidence.
Do not be concerned about whether evidence is “direct evidence” or “circumstantial evidence.” You
should consider and weigh all of the evidence that was presented to you.
“Direct evidence” is the testimony of one who asserts actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eye witness. “Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of events and circumstances indicating that something is or is not a fact.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given either direct or circumstantial evidence. But the law requires that you, after weighing all of the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, be convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt before you can find him guilty.
https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf (https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf)
-
Sadly, some people mistake and try to classify reasonable inferences for speculation. Here is more, this time from the US Courts for the Fifth Circuit:
In considering the evidence, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the evidence.
Do not be concerned about whether evidence is “direct evidence” or “circumstantial evidence.” You
should consider and weigh all of the evidence that was presented to you.
“Direct evidence” is the testimony of one who asserts actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eye witness. “Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of events and circumstances indicating that something is or is not a fact.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given either direct or circumstantial evidence. But the law requires that you, after weighing all of the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, be convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt before you can find him guilty.
https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf (https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf)
So predictable.
some people mistake and try to classify reasonable inferences for speculation.
One person's "reasonable inference" is another person's speculation.
Some people make the mistake of confusing a jury's albility to make a reasonable inference from the actual evidence with the ability of a prosecutor to introduce speculation to connect the dots during the trial under the guise of presenting circumstantial evidence.
Objection, assumes facts not in evidence!
Bottom line; a lot of what we discuss on this board would never get into a trial, for a number of reasons. One reason could be that the prosecutor may not want to risk putting witnesses like Markham, Bledsoe and Roberts on the stand for fear of them being destroyed by the defense. Another reason could be that a certain piece of evidence actually doesn't show what they want it to show and introducing it could massively backfire.
-
There could never be a true trial for LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that. However, the rules that the courts have in place are there to try to help insure that a fair trial takes place. I think that our opinions could possibly be made more fair if we at least consider what the courts would have done if LHO had lived to go to trial. Here is another snip from the Fifth Circuit:
As I told you earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts. To do so, you must consider only the evidence presented during the trial. Evidence is the sworn testimony of the witnesses, including stipulations, and the exhibits. The questions, statements, objections, and arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence.
The function of the lawyers is to point out those things that are most significant or most helpful to their side of the case, and in so doing to call your attention to certain facts or inferences that might otherwise escape your notice. In the final analysis, however, it is your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence that controls in the case. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you.
People can speculate about what might have happened all they want to for as long as they want to. Many conspiracy oriented books have been sold and read based on speculations. But that is all they are, speculation (which is not allowed in the courts).
-
There could never be a true trial for LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that. However, the rules that the courts have in place are there to try to help insure that a fair trial takes place. I think that our opinions could possibly be made more fair if we at least consider what the courts would have done if LHO had lived to go to trial. Here is another snip from the Fifth Circuit:
As I told you earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts. To do so, you must consider only the evidence presented during the trial. Evidence is the sworn testimony of the witnesses, including stipulations, and the exhibits. The questions, statements, objections, and arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence.
The function of the lawyers is to point out those things that are most signicant or most helpful to their side of the case, and in so doing to call your attention to certain facts or inferences that might otherwise escape your notice. In the final analysis, however, it is your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence that controls in the case. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you.
People can speculate about what might have happened all they want to for as long as they want to. Many conspiracy oriented books have been sold and read based on speculations. But that is all they are, speculation (which is not allowed in the courts).
I think that our opinions could possibly be made more fair if we at least consider what the courts would have done if LHO had lived to go to trial.
You say this and then you say;
Many conspiracy oriented books have been sold and read based on speculations. But that is all they are, speculation (which is not allowed in the courts).
Books like the WC report and Bug's doorstopper are full of speculation under the guise of an alleged preponderance of evidence which in most cases simply isn't there.
This is a sixty years old case, with the physical evidence locked away in the National Archives and not accessible for testing. Many of the witnesses are no longer with us. All there is left now is to make reasonable inferences from the available evidence, just like a jury would do at trial. So, let's keep it real, shall we?
-
There could never be a true trial for LHO. Jack Ruby made sure of that. However, the rules that the courts have in place are there to try to help insure that a fair trial takes place. I think that our opinions could possibly be made more fair if we at least consider what the courts would have done if LHO had lived to go to trial. Here is another snip from the Fifth Circuit:
As I told you earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts. To do so, you must consider only the evidence presented during the trial. Evidence is the sworn testimony of the witnesses, including stipulations, and the exhibits. The questions, statements, objections, and arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence.
The function of the lawyers is to point out those things that are most significant or most helpful to their side of the case, and in so doing to call your attention to certain facts or inferences that might otherwise escape your notice. In the final analysis, however, it is your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence that controls in the case. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you.
People can speculate about what might have happened all they want to for as long as they want to. Many conspiracy oriented books have been sold and read based on speculations. But that is all they are, speculation (which is not allowed in the courts).
This is really a long overdue point. The conspiracists and Oswald defenders like to raise questions about the evidence based solely on speculation and disagreement and think that and that alone means the evidence can be dismissed or waved away. Outside a court or inside of one. As in: "It's possibly planted" or "Chain of custody was insufficient." As your quote shows, it can't. They want to use a legal standard against the lone assassin believers and evidence and then abandon that legal standard when it comes to their arguments or response to that evidence.
If they want to use the courtroom standard in judging evidence against Oswald then they need to use that standard when it comes to their claims too. Defense attorney can't just make things up and think it's sufficient to eliminate the evidence. It's not.
-
This is really a long overdue point. The conspiracists and Oswald defenders like to raise questions about the evidence based solely on speculation and disagreement and think that and that alone means the evidence can be dismissed or waved away. "It's possibly planted" or "Chain of custody was insufficient." As your quote shows, it can't. They want to use one legal standard against the lone assassin believers and then abandon that standard when it comes to their arguments.
If they want to use the courtroom standards in judging evidence against Oswald then they need to use that standard when it comes to their claims too. Defense attorney can't just make things up and think it's sufficient to eliminate the evidence. It's not.
The conspiracists and Oswald defenders like to raise questions about the evidence based solely on speculation and disagreement
That's simply not true. Why do you start your argument with a lie?
think that and that alone means the evidence can be dismissed or waved away. "It's possibly planted" or "Chain of custody was insufficient." As your quote shows, it can't
Utter BS. Evidence needs to be authenticated, conclusive and persuasive. When it is, there is no ground to dismiss it. However, as in many instances in this case, when evidence is superficial, not conclusive and the dots are only connected with leaps of faith and assumptions there is every reason to question it's validity.
If they want to use the courtroom standards in judging evidence against Oswald then they need to use that standard when it comes to their claims too.
Agreed, as long as well argued counter arguments are not instantly dismissed or waved away by the LNs simply because they can't believe or even image something else than what they believe could have actually happened.
Defense attorney can't just make things up and think it's sufficient to eliminate the evidence. It's not.
And neither can prosecutors make things up. When somebody claims there is a preponderance of evidence, there should at least actually be evidence there to examine, right?
The bottom line is a simple one; evidence is compelling and conclusive or it isn't. Just how strong the evidence is can be measured by the (lack of) response from the other side to a challenge of that evidence. If a LN truly feels he has a strong case, he should be able to defend it and accept the weaker parts of that case. Instead, what we see frequently here is LNs not responding to the challenge but instead attack the challenger, playing silly games, and/or desperately trying to pivot away from what is actually being discussed.
Case in point, the WC claimed that the preponderance of evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired. In reality there is no such evidence. All there really is, is a rifle which it is alleged to belong to Oswald and some shells. There is zero evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when Kennedy was killed. All there are, are assumptions and speculations, but feel free to prove me wrong. I'll gladly bow to superior evidence that shows I am wrong.
-
Sadly, some people mistake and try to classify reasonable inferences for speculation. Here is more, this time from the US Courts for the Fifth Circuit:
In considering the evidence, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the evidence.
Do not be concerned about whether evidence is “direct evidence” or “circumstantial evidence.” You
should consider and weigh all of the evidence that was presented to you.
“Direct evidence” is the testimony of one who asserts actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eye witness. “Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of events and circumstances indicating that something is or is not a fact.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given either direct or circumstantial evidence. But the law requires that you, after weighing all of the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, be convinced of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt before you can find him guilty.
https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf (https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf)
This is really a long overdue point. The conspiracists and Oswald defenders like to raise questions about the evidence based solely on speculation and disagreement and think that and that alone means the evidence can be dismissed or waved away. Outside a court or inside of one. As in: "It's possibly planted" or "Chain of custody was insufficient." As your quote shows, it can't. They want to use a legal standard against the lone assassin believers and evidence and then abandon that legal standard when it comes to their arguments or response to that evidence.
If they want to use the courtroom standard in judging evidence against Oswald then they need to use that standard when it comes to their claims too. Defense attorney can't just make things up and think it's sufficient to eliminate the evidence. It's not.
Thanks Charles and Steve, you have both nailed it.
CT's continually demand that LNers prove whatever fact to some impossible standard yet they can speculate till the cows come home and then insist that we must consider their fantasies. For instance I have presented evidence linking Hidell to Oswald, like the New Orleans PO box application, the Hidell Identification which Oswald had the retouched negatives used to create the fake ID in his possessions, numerous examples where Oswald used the name Hidell as reference for Job applications and that Oswald's nickname in Russia was Alek.
Yet I am asked to consider without a shred of evidence that Oswald was being manipulated by someone called A J Hidell. Yes, seriously!
And Iacoletti with a wave of his hand discards the uniquely specific retouched negatives because it doesn't have the name Hidell, while knowing full well that the name Hidell was typed onto the created faked ID, again an impossible standard of proof is required.
In the past I have asked precisely what evidence beyond purchase orders addressed to Oswald's PO Box, hand written coupons and envelopes addressed to Oswald's PO Box, photographs with the exact type of rifle and etc would be considered proof that Oswald bought and owned the rifle and am met with the usual silence or they will let me know when the evidence is produced and obviously again to some impossible standard, where they will further split the already split hairs. Ironically in the post directly preceding mine we are told that "I'll gladly bow to superior evidence that shows I am wrong", but beyond the Mountain of evidence already presented what this "superior evidence" is supposed to entail is never explained. -sigh-
What I have never seen from the CT's is a reasonable refutation of why the rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box, they claim that the Kleins business document(Waldman 7) doesn't prove it was sent and demand that the despatcher should have been called to testify but what would he/she/they say? Are they supposed to remember someone named Hidell, absurd. And DiEugenio and others have demanded that some postal worker at the Dallas Post Office eight months later should have remembered the Hidell rifle order, another absurdity in the real world where a worker handles many orders every single day.
Again, it's prove this impossible standard to my(CT's) satisfaction because of course they(CT's) have set themselves up as The Ultimate Arbiter, or whatever piece of evidence that links Oswald to the crime, simply isn't true.
Another example is when the undeniable overwhelming physical evidence linking Oswald to the crime is presented it's faked or when Police testify there is some sort of "law enforcement grapevine" LOL and "Group think psyche" LOL!
And yet another example is the Tippit murder where Oswald shoots Tippit in front of eyewitnesses, leaves exclusively matching shells, is seen in front of more eyewitnesses leaving the scene with his revolver on full display, leaves his Jacket in a parking lot and then tries to kill more Police with the exact same weapon that left shells at the Tippit crime scene. But at every point the CT's disgustingly attempt to defend this Cop Killer.
JohnM
-
Thanks Charles and Steve, you have both nailed it.
CT's continually demand that LNers prove whatever fact to some impossible standard yet they can speculate till the cows come home and then insist that we must consider their fantasies. For instance I have presented evidence linking Hidell to Oswald, like the New Orleans PO box application, the Hidell Identification which Oswald had the retouched negatives used to create the fake ID in his possessions, numerous examples where Oswald used the name Hidell as reference for Job applications and that Oswald's nickname in Russia was Alek.
Yet I am asked to consider without a shred of evidence that Oswald was being manipulated by someone called A J Hidell. Yes, seriously!
And Iacoletti with a wave of his hand discards the uniquely specific retouched negatives because it doesn't have the name Hidell, while knowing full well that the name Hidell was typed onto the created faked ID, again an impossible standard of proof is required.
In the past I have asked precisely what evidence beyond purchase orders addressed to Oswald's PO Box, hand written coupons and envelopes addressed to Oswald's PO Box, photographs with the exact type of rifle and etc would be considered proof that Oswald bought and owned the rifle and am met with the usual silence or they will let me know when the evidence is produced and obviously again to some impossible standard, where they will further split the already split hairs. Ironically in the post directly preceding mine we are told that "I'll gladly bow to superior evidence that shows I am wrong", but beyond the Mountain of evidence already presented what this "superior evidence" is supposed to entail is never explained. -sigh-
What I have never seen from the CT's is a reasonable refutation of why the rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box, they claim that the Kleins business document(Waldman 7) doesn't prove it was sent and demand that the despatcher should have been called to testify but what would he/she/they say? Are they supposed to remember someone named Hidell, absurd. And DiEugenio and others have demanded that some postal worker at the Dallas Post Office eight months later should have remembered the Hidell rifle order, another absurdity in the real world where a worker handles many orders every single day.
Again, it's prove this impossible standard to my(CT's) satisfaction because of course they(CT's) have set themselves up as The Ultimate Arbiter, or whatever piece of evidence that links Oswald to the crime, simply isn't true.
Another example is when the undeniable overwhelming physical evidence linking Oswald to the crime is presented it's faked or when Police testify there is some sort of "law enforcement grapevine" LOL and "Group think psyche" LOL!
And yet another example is the Tippit murder where Oswald shoots Tippit in front of eyewitnesses, leaves exclusively matching shells, is seen in front of more eyewitnesses leaving the scene with his revolver on full display, leaves his Jacket in a parking lot and then tries to kill more Police with the exact same weapon that left shells at the Tippit crime scene. But at every point the CT's disgustingly attempt to defend this Cop Killer.
JohnM
CT's continually demand that LNers prove whatever fact to some impossible standard yet they can speculate till the cows come home
And that's the best example of a LN whining about the fact that there are people who ask them to support their claims with actual authentic and conclusive evidence.
I guess it's easier to attack the people who are not convinced by your BS than it is to persuade them with that so-called "mountain of undeniable overwhelming physical evidence".
It's like a bad prosecutor complaining to the Judge about the jury not believing his pathetic little story.... :D
But to answer your basic question, let me just give you one simple example;
When you show me a BY photograph and say it shows Oswald is holding a rifle that looks similar to the type of Carcano that was ordered with the Hidell coupon, I will agree with you.
Show me the same photograph and claim that it proves that Oswald received and owned the rifle found at the TSBD, I will disagree with you because your claim isn't supported by the evidence.
Get it now?
-
But to answer your basic question, let me just give you one simple example;
When you show me a BY photograph and say it shows Oswald is holding a rifle that looks similar to the type of Carcano that was ordered with the Hidell coupon, I will agree with you.
With pleasure.
From the Kleins ad, Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750
(https://i.postimg.cc/V672KH7F/Rifle-ad1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/285np90Z/Kleins-Ad1.jpg)
And in addition, the rifle in evidence found on the 6th floor shares the exact same serial number that Kleins sent.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrhFJPVW/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
Now agree with me!
Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
-
You're all over the place, either the "Hidell Story" was firmly implanted or it wasn't?
If you can’t figure out the difference between a story and the precise details of a story, then I can’t help you.
-
The reality is that the Hidell ID wasn't even needed because yet another piece of evidence linking Oswald with his A J Hidell alias is the New Orleans post box application which was opened way back in June.
I guess this means “Marina Oswald” was “his alias” too.
🙄
-
With pleasure.
From the Kleins ad, Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750
(https://i.postimg.cc/V672KH7F/Rifle-ad1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/285np90Z/Kleins-Ad1.jpg)
And in addition, the rifle in evidence found on the 6th floor shares the exact same serial number that Kleins sent.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrhFJPVW/C2766isinevidence.jpg)
Now agree with me!
Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
No, because there are too many leaps of faith and not enough credible evidence to support your claims.
From the Kleins ad, Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750
First leap of faith! Show me proof that Oswald received anything. I don't believe there is, or ever was, a mail order business that ships merchandise without any confirmation of either shipping or receipt.
Secondly, details matter, even when you like to ignore them. The order was for C20-T750 from Department 358 (the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman) which is not the same rifle they offered as C20-T750 in the April issue. To just assume that Kleins' would simply send out another rifle than was ordered is another leap of faith. The WC did not even bother to ask Waldman about the sending out of a rifle that was different from the one ordered. One can only wonder why.....
And in addition, the rifle in evidence found on the 6th floor shares the exact same serial number that Kleins sent.
Wrong. The rifle found at the TSBD has the same serial number that was hand written on Waldman 7. There is no way to verify when the document we know as Waldman 7 was actually made and by who and it most certainly isn't proof of any rifle being sent, nothwithstanding Waldman's explanation of the meaning of the also hand written letters "PP" on the same document.
So, sorry, just too many leaps of faith and not enough authenticated evidence to justify the conclusions you are jumping to. It is beyond belief that something this basic needs to be explained to you.
Btw, there is something I don't really understand. That Kleins' made copies of order coupons on microfilm I can understand. That's probably a better way to keep track of all incoming orders than saving all those coupons. However, as Waldman explained, document 7 is an internal order form which is generated for each order. Why in the world would they copy that on microfilm as well and not keep the original?
-
Oswald listed a "Sgt. Robt. Hidell" as a reference on one job application 39 and "George Hidell" as a reference on another
How does this make “Hidell” an alias for himself?
-
What really needs to be pointed out is that speculation is not allowed to be considered when considering whether or not there is reasonable doubt. Only evidence (exhibits, sworn testimony, etc.) which is allowed to be introduced at a trial is allowed for consideration. All the speculation, in all the books, articles, web forum posts, etc., that tries to entice the readers to have doubts about LHO’s guilt would not be allowed at a trial (including a jury room).
Neither would all the speculation that LNers like to pretend is “evidence”. Nor anything Marina had to say.
But so what? There wasn’t a trial and there never will be one.
Also, Dallas is not in the ninth circuit.
-
Sadly, some people mistake and try to classify reasonable inferences for speculation.
Everybody thinks his own speculation is a “reasonable inference”.
-
People can speculate about what might have happened all they want to for as long as they want to. Many conspiracy oriented books have been sold and read based on speculations. But that is all they are, speculation (which is not allowed in the courts).
So are the WCR conclusions, Charles. The difference is that the burden is always on the accuser.
-
This is really a long overdue point. The conspiracists and Oswald defenders like to raise questions about the evidence based solely on speculation and disagreement and think that and that alone means the evidence can be dismissed or waved away. Outside a court or inside of one. As in: "It's possibly planted" or "Chain of custody was insufficient." As your quote shows, it can't. They want to use a legal standard against the lone assassin believers and evidence and then abandon that legal standard when it comes to their arguments or response to that evidence.
Nope. It has nothing to do with a legal standard — it’s a logical one. If your argument relies on speculation, handwaving, unauthenticatable evidence and claims about it then it does not merit acceptance or belief.
-
And Iacoletti with a wave of his hand discards the uniquely specific retouched negatives because it doesn't have the name Hidell, while knowing full well that the name Hidell was typed onto the created faked ID, again an impossible standard of proof is required.
What exactly do you think is “uniquely specific” about them and how do you know Oswald typed “Hidell” onto them? Or even that these negatives were Oswald’s? You don’t. It’s all assumption and speculation.
What I have never seen from the CT's is a reasonable refutation of why the rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box, they claim that the Kleins business document(Waldman 7) doesn't prove it was sent and demand that the despatcher should have been called to testify but what would he/she/they say? Are they supposed to remember someone named Hidell, absurd. And DiEugenio and others have demanded that some postal worker at the Dallas Post Office eight months later should have remembered the Hidell rifle order, another absurdity in the real world where a worker handles many orders every single day.
So basically what you’re saying is that “Waldman said so” is all you’ve got, so it has to be good enough. Even though he had nothing to do with the order and would have no idea if Oswald ever received anything. The problem can’t possibly be that your argument is weak and inconclusive. It must be an “impossible standard”.
And yet another example is the Tippit murder where Oswald shoots Tippit in front of eyewitnesses, leaves exclusively matching shells, is seen in front of more eyewitnesses leaving the scene with his revolver on full display, leaves his Jacket in a parking lot and then tries to kill more Police with the exact same weapon that left shells at the Tippit crime scene. But at every point the CT's disgustingly attempt to defend this Cop Killer.
All together now: claims aren’t evidence.
-
I guess this means “Marina Oswald” was “his alias” too.
🙄
What? Marina Oswald was his wife, and Oswald authorised his wife to receive mail.
But enough with the ridiculous diversions, the fact that you don't want to explain the reason why Oswald put A J Hidell on the post box application is duly noted.
JohnM
-
If you can’t figure out the difference between a story and the precise details of a story, then I can’t help you.
Ummm? ok?
JohnM
-
No, because there are too many leaps of faith and not enough credible evidence to support your claims.
From the Kleins ad, Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750
First leap of faith! Show me proof that Oswald received anything. I don't believe there is, or ever was, a mail order business that ships merchandise without any confirmation of either shipping or receipt.
Secondly, details matter, even when you like to ignore them. The order was for C20-T750 from Department 358 (the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman) which is not the same rifle they offered as C20-T750 in the April issue. To just assume that Kleins' would simply send out another rifle than was ordered is another leap of faith. The WC did not even bother to ask Waldman about the sending out of a rifle that was different from the one ordered. One can only wonder why.....
And in addition, the rifle in evidence found on the 6th floor shares the exact same serial number that Kleins sent.
Wrong. The rifle found at the TSBD has the same serial number that was hand written on Waldman 7. There is no way to verify when the document we know as Waldman 7 was actually made and by who and it most certainly isn't proof of any rifle being sent, nothwithstanding Waldman's explanation of the meaning of the also hand written letters "PP" on the same document.
So, sorry, just too many leaps of faith and not enough authenticated evidence to justify the conclusions you are jumping to. It is beyond belief that something this basic needs to be explained to you.
Btw, there is something I don't really understand. That Kleins' made copies of order coupons on microfilm I can understand. That's probably a better way to keep track of all incoming orders than saving all those coupons. However, as Waldman explained, document 7 is an internal order form which is generated for each order. Why in the world would they copy that on microfilm as well and not keep the original?
1. Waldman 7 is Kleins business record and has all the relevant details like who bought what and how the order was sent and when, just because you don't understand what is written doesn't change any of that.
2. Dept 358 is not some department within Kleins but is simply a way to track what orders came from what specific magazine, nothing more. Kleins was still advertising 36 inch Carcano's in at least 1 other magazine well into 1963, thus proving imo that they didn't really care about a small difference in length in a cheap war surplus rifle.
3. The typed Kleins document Waldman 7 was produced and then sent to the warehouse where the rifle control number, rifle serial number, date of shipping, method of shipping and the initials of who picked and who packed and sent the order were all written by hand. The revolver order also had a similar written serial number.
4. Waldman 10 shows the banking details for well over a hundred orders on 1 single day which quickly accumulates, so Kleins saved orders on microfilm. It's not exactly rock science.
You can disagree all you want but Waldman was the Vice President who knew the business whereas your lack of "faith" is meaningless.
Mr. BELIN. And in your capacity as vice president, what are your general areas of work?
Mr. WALDMAN. Supervising office, warehouse, and retail operations, participating in the merchandising and advertising.
Btw you seem to be suggesting that Waldman is lying and that the entire rifle transaction is the product of yet more fakery, is that right?
JohnM
-
So are the WCR conclusions, Charles. The difference is that the burden is always on the accuser.
"Traditionally, the way to reach a conclusion in a criminal case is to draw reasonable inferences from solid evidence. So the evidence is the foundation on which all inferences and conclusions are based. Conspiracy theorists, in contrast, make completely baseless assumptions and then proceed to make further assumptions based on these assumptions. As an example, they assume, without any evidence, that there was a conspiracy in the assassination and that Oswald was an unwitting participant. They then proceed to assume, again without any evidence, that Oswald became aware of this conspiracy at the time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, and believe that he was being set up to take the fall for the assassination, and this is why he fled the Book Depository Building. But where is there any evidence to support either of these two assumptions?*
This is particularly startling and noteworthy when one stops to realize that those making the allegation of conspiracy necessarily have the burden of proof. I mean, it makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that there is a conspiracy here. Now you prove there isn’t.” The alleger always, by definition, has the burden of proof. To say that those alleging a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination have not met their burden of proof would be the understatement of the millennium. Here, the absence of any credible evidence of a conspiracy is bad enough for the conspiracy theorists, but, as demonstrated on these pages, there is much, much evidence pointing irresistibly in the direction of no conspiracy."
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi
Yes that Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions. Btw "John", how many cases have you successfully defended?
JohnM
-
1. Waldman 7 is Kleins business record and has all the relevant details like who bought what and how the order was sent and when, just because you don't understand what is written doesn't change any of that.
I understand perfectly what is written on that document. You fail to understand that the document simply isn't authenticated. Anybody, at any time, could have written the serial number and "PP" on that document. As much as you like it to be it simply isn't proof of a rifle having been sent or having been received by Hidell or Oswald.
2. Dept 358 is not some department within Kleins but is simply a way to track what orders came from what specific magazine, nothing more. Kleins was still advertising 36 inch Carcano's in at least 1 other magazine well into 1963, thus proving imo that they didn't really care about a small difference in length in a cheap war surplus rifle.
I am also well aware that the department number relates to a particular advertisment. It seems the point I made was completely lost on you. Kleins' may well have used the same C20-T750 number, but the weapon sold under that number in the February issue is not the same as the one advertised in April. The combination of order number and department numbers identifies one particular kind of rifle. The rifle that was allegedly sent to Oswald's P.O. box does not match the rifle described in the February advertisment,
To just say that they didn't really care which rifle they would send out is not only your opinion (for which you have no evidence) but it's also laugable.
3. The typed Kleins document Waldman 7 was produced and then sent to the warehouse where the rifle control number, rifle serial number, date of shipping, method of shipping and the initials of who picked and who packed and sent the order were all written by hand. The revolver order also had a similar written serial number.
Yes, and the person who wrote the serial number on Waldman 7 could easily have identified his handwriting and in doing so authenticate the document. They never determined who that person was. They simply were not interested or perhaps could not risk it to learn something they did not want to learn. It wouldn't be the first or last that that happened in that "investigation". IMO they didn't call Paul Bentley to testify and did not show Tomlinson CE399 for identication, for exactly the same reason.
In any event, Waldman 7 isn't a proof of shipment and since you brought up the revolver, that did in fact have a shipping document. So, I'm not sure what the point is you are trying to make but it isn't going anywhere fast.
4. Waldman 10 shows the banking details for well over a hundred orders on 1 single day which quickly accumulates, so Kleins saved orders on microfilm. It's not exactly rock science.
Why are you talking about saving orders on microfilm? That's understandable and not the issue. The issue is Waldman 7. So, they first produce a hundered internal documents then put them on microfilm and that makes sense to you? Seems double work to me, just to save a copy of an original internal document they already have.
You can disagree all you want but Waldman was the Vice President who knew the business whereas your lack of "faith" is meaningless.
Mr. BELIN. And in your capacity as vice president, what are your general areas of work?
Mr. WALDMAN. Supervising office, warehouse, and retail operations, participating in the merchandising and advertising.
And there is the appeal to authority fallacy again. A guy who sits behind a desk confirmed what some markings on a form mean. Big deal....
Btw you seem to be suggesting that Waldman is lying and that the entire rifle transaction is the product of yet more fakery, is that right?
JohnM
No, I am not suggesting that Waldman is lying. I am sure he acted in good faith when he explained the purchase of rifles from Cresent and the paperwork involved in that. But, in a previous post, you responded to my question why they did not authenticate Waldman 7 by having the person who wrote the serial number on it, confirming it's authenticity, by saying;
they claim that the Kleins business document(Waldman 7) doesn't prove it was sent and demand that the despatcher should have been called to testify but what would he/she/they say? Are they supposed to remember someone named Hidell, absurd.
And this is my reply; if the person who wrote the serial number can't authenticate it - by confirming his handwriting - than surely Waldman, who as VP isn't involved in warehouse activity and probably never handles a document as Waldman 7, most certainly isn't capable of authenticating the document. Which is exactly where your flawed appeal to authority falls flat on it's face.
I don't need to suggest that Waldman 7 is the product of fakery. Proper authentication has to tell me that the document is indeed valid and original. This is where you go off the rails time after time. You don't get to assume a piece of physical evidence is authentic unless it is proven it isn't.
-
"Traditionally, the way to reach a conclusion in a criminal case is to draw reasonable inferences from solid evidence. So the evidence is the foundation on which all inferences and conclusions are based. Conspiracy theorists, in contrast, make completely baseless assumptions and then proceed to make further assumptions based on these assumptions. As an example, they assume, without any evidence, that there was a conspiracy in the assassination and that Oswald was an unwitting participant. They then proceed to assume, again without any evidence, that Oswald became aware of this conspiracy at the time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, and believe that he was being set up to take the fall for the assassination, and this is why he fled the Book Depository Building. But where is there any evidence to support either of these two assumptions?*
This is particularly startling and noteworthy when one stops to realize that those making the allegation of conspiracy necessarily have the burden of proof. I mean, it makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that there is a conspiracy here. Now you prove there isn’t.” The alleger always, by definition, has the burden of proof. To say that those alleging a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination have not met their burden of proof would be the understatement of the millennium. Here, the absence of any credible evidence of a conspiracy is bad enough for the conspiracy theorists, but, as demonstrated on these pages, there is much, much evidence pointing irresistibly in the direction of no conspiracy."
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi
Yes that Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions. Btw "John", how many cases have you successfully defended?
JohnM
the way to reach a conclusion in a criminal case is to draw reasonable inferences from solid evidence.
So, the evidence needs to be solid... Did you get that part, John?
The alleger always, by definition, has the burden of proof.
In other words; if you claim a piece of evidence is authentic and can be relied upon, you have the burden of proof...... Do you understand that, John?
Yes that Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions.
I know you adore your high priest, John, but this is still another appeal of authority fallacy. Bugliosi isn't automatically right because Bugliosi said so. John Mytton isn't automatically right because he agrees with Bugliosi.
-
I understand perfectly what is written on that document. You fail to understand that the document simply isn't authenticated. Anybody, at any time, could have written the serial number and "PP" on that document. As much as you like it to be it simply isn't proof of a rifle having been sent or having been received by Hidell or Oswald.
I am also well aware that the department number relates to a particular advertisment. It seems the point I made was completely lost on you. Kleins' may well have used the same C20-T750 number, but the weapon sold under that number in the February issue is not the same as the one advertised in April. The combination of order number and department numbers identifies one particular kind of rifle. The rifle that was allegedly sent to Oswald's P.O. box does not match the rifle described in the February advertisment,
To just say that they didn't really care which rifle they would send out is not only your opinion (for which you have no evidence) but it's also laugable.
Yes, and the person who wrote the serial number on Waldman 7 could easily have identified his handwriting and in doing so authenticate the document. They never determined who that person was. They simply were not interested or perhaps could not risk it to learn something they did not want to learn. It wouldn't be the first or last that that happened in that "investigation". IMO they didn't call Paul Bentley to testify and did not show Tomlinson CE399 for identication, for exactly the same reason.
In any event, Waldman 7 isn't a proof of shipment and since you brought up the revolver, that did in fact have a shipping document. So, I'm not sure what the point is you are trying to make but it isn't going anywhere fast.
Why are you talking about saving orders on microfilm? That's understandable and not the issue. The issue is Waldman 7. So, they first produce a hundered internal documents then put them on microfilm and that makes sense to you? Seems double work to me, just to save a copy of an original internal document they already have.
And there is the appeal to authority fallacy again. A guy who sits behind a desk confirmed what some markings on a form mean. Big deal....
No, I am not suggesting that Waldman is lying. I am sure he acted in good faith when he explained the purchase of rifles from Cresent and the paperwork involved in that. But, in a previous post, you responded to my question why they did not authenticate Waldman 7 by having the person who wrote the serial number on it, confirming it's authenticity, by saying;
And this is my reply; if the person who wrote the serial number can't authenticate it - by confirming his handwriting - than surely Waldman, who as VP isn't involved in warehouse activity and probably never handles a document as Waldman 7, most certainly isn't capable of authenticating the document. Which is exactly where your flawed appeal to authority falls flat on it's face.
I don't need to suggest that Waldman 7 is the product of fakery. Proper authentication has to tell me that the document is indeed valid and original. This is where you go off the rails time after time. You don't get to assume a piece of physical evidence is authentic unless it is proven it isn't.
Proper authentication has to tell me that the document is indeed valid and original.
It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, you will continue your game of asking for evidence which you know doesn't exist and then claim some sort of hollow victory, for instance your reason this time is that the writing on the order wasn't authenticated, give me a break.
At the end of the day Waldman was called into work and discovered Waldman 7 and CE773 in their eight month old microfilm business records and at his testimony he printed out Waldman 7 and CE773 directly from Kleins business records.
I'm not going to waste any more time with your little games. Let's agree to disagree and move on. Life is too short for this stupidity.
JohnM
-
the way to reach a conclusion in a criminal case is to draw reasonable inferences from solid evidence.
So, the evidence needs to be solid... Did you get that part, John?
I certainly did Martin but using the above example, if a direct print out from Kleins very own Microfilm business records isn't absolute Rock Solid evidence then there is nothing that will convince the hardcore conspiracy theorist.
No offence but all you are doing is regurgitating the exact same arguments I was reading a decade ago from Caprio, Roger Collins, Miles Scull, David Josephs etc etc. And you all seem to think that every piece of evidence is required to meet some unobtainable standard of authentication, like the absurd authenticating writing on a warehouse order form.
Yesterday you were asking me to consider that A J Hidell was a real person which presumably explains the rifle order and Oswald's association with the name Hidell and today you are asking me to consider that Waldman 7 with Hidell's name isn't real because it wasn't authenticated and thus nullifying yesterday's theory. It must be nice to be so flexible in your journey of discovery.
JohnM
-
It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, you will continue your game of asking for evidence which you know doesn't exist and then claim some sort of hollow victory because you want evidence that doesn't need to exist. For instance your reason this time is that the writing on the order wasn't authenticated, give me a break.
At the end of the day Waldman was called into work and discovered Waldman 7 and CE773 in their eight month old microfilm business records and at his testimony he printed out Waldman 7 and CE773 directly from Kleins business records.
I'm not going to waste any more time with your little games. Let's agree to disagree and move on. Life is too short for this stupidity.
JohnM
Oops, the prosecutor is angry at the jury again because they want evidence from him he can't provide..... :D :D :D
I get it, John. You would prefer it that instead of looking at actual evidence you just want people to take your word for it.
But I am glad that you now admit that no shipping documents for a rifle sent to Oswald's P.O. box exist. Thumb1:
For instance your reason this time is that the writing on the order wasn't authenticated, give me a break.
If you don't understand that evidence should always be authenticated, you really have no business making claims about that evidence, John.
You may not consider it important that evidence is actually authentic but in the real world something like that actually matters. I can only hope that you will never find yourself in a position of being accused of something based on evidence that isn't authenticated.
At the end of the day Waldman was called into work and discovered Waldman 7 and CE773 in their eight month old microfilm business records and at his testimony he printed out Waldman 7 and CE773 directly from Kleins business records.
Yes, Waldman was called in to work on 11/22/63 and showed the FBI the microfilm. I can't find anywhere that they "discovered Waldman 7" but even if they did, the FBI took the microfilm that night and Waldman only got to see it once after that, during his testimony, on 05/20/64. Do you really he would remember what was on the form on 11/23/63? I doubt it. Early in his testimony Waldman identified Mitchell W. Westra as the person who actually filled the Hidell order. Btw, Westra worked under the supervision of Sam Kasper, the other VP at Kleins'. Kinda remarkable that they called Waldman, who had nothing to do with gun sales, instead of Kasper. But that aside, just how difficult would it have been to get Westra to confirm his handwriting on Waldman 7? Could the fact that they did not ask Westra perhaps have anything to do with the fact that Westra is on record saying that Kleins' did not send out 40" Carcanos with a scope?
I'm not going to waste any more time with your little games. Let's agree to disagree and move on. Life is too short for this stupidity.
What's the matter, John? Are you getting stuck already or is what I am telling you simply too complicated for you to deal with?
This is the third time you've thrown a temper tantrum because you can't get your way.... Are you alright?
-
Could the fact that they did not ask Westra perhaps have anything to do with the fact that Westra is on record saying that Kleins' did not send out 40" Carcanos with a scope?
Yet Kleins advertised the 40 inch rifle with a scope for many months? Go figure!
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4N9YNV5/40-inch-carcano-rifle-with-scope.jpg)
JohnM
-
I certainly did Martin but using the above example, if a direct print out from Kleins very own Microfilm business records isn't absolute Rock Solid evidence then there is nothing that will convince the hardcore conspiracy theorist.
No offence but all you are doing is regurgitating the exact same arguments I was reading a decade ago from Caprio, Roger Collins, Miles Scull, David Josephs etc etc. And you all seem to think that every piece of evidence is required to meet some unobtainable standard of authentication, like the absurd authenticating writing on a warehouse order form.
Yesterday you were asking me to consider that A J Hidell was a real person which presumably explains the rifle order and Oswald's association with the name Hidell and today you are asking me to consider that Waldman 7 with Hidell's name isn't real because it wasn't authenticated and thus nullifying yesterday's theory. It must be nice to be so flexible in your journey of discovery.
JohnM
I certainly did Martin but using the above example, if a direct print out from Kleins very own Microfilm business records isn't absolute Rock Solid evidence then there is nothing that will convince the hardcore conspiracy theorist.
If you consider a print taken in May 1964 from a microfilm that nobody has seen since 11/22/63 "absolute rock solid evidence" then you are probably right that you won't convince any kind of conspiracy theorist or a skeptic like me.
No offence but all you are doing is regurgitating the exact same arguments I was reading a decade ago from Caprio, Roger Collins, Miles Scull, David Josephs etc etc.
No offence taken. It's probably because in all that time you still haven't been able to provide the conclusive evidence to prove them wrong.
Yesterday you were asking me to consider that A J Hidell was a real person which presumably explains the rifle order and Oswald's association with the name Hidell and today you are asking me to consider that Waldman 7 with Hidell's name isn't real because it wasn't authenticated and thus nullifying yesterday's theory. It must be nice to be so flexible in your journey of discovery.
In yesterday's scenario it was about the possibility that Oswald had been manipulated by somebody he knew as Hidell. Today I am not asking you to consider that Waldman 7 isn't real. Waldman 7 was generated as result from the Hidell order, and we know that Kleins did receive the order. I'm merely asking you to authenticate Waldman 7, not because of the connection to the Hidell order but to make sure the link with the TSBD rifle by way of a handwritten serial number is solid. I'm sorry that you got confused.
-
Yet Kleins advertised the 40 inch rifle with a scope for many months? Go figure!
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4N9YNV5/40-inch-carcano-rifle-with-scope.jpg)
JohnM
Wouldn't it have been nice to just ask Westra about that or, for that matter, his immediate superior, VP Sam Kasper?
-
merely asking you to authenticate Waldman 7, not because of the connection to the Hidell order but to make sure the link with the TSBD rifle by way of a handwritten serial number is solid. I'm sorry that you got confused.
C2766 was recorded coming from Crescent and C2766 was again recorded as being in Klein's inventory with a unique control number so please explain the necessity and/or the methodology of any deception after Waldman initially sighted the Hidell order on the microfilm?
JohnM
-
C2766 was recorded coming from Crescent and C2766 was again recorded as being in Klein's inventory with a unique control number so please explain the necessity and/or the methodology of any deception after Waldman initially sighted the Hidell order on the microfilm?
JohnM
Without knowing precisely what was actually going on, back then, there is no way that I can explain to you what kind of necessity there would have been to manipulate Waldman 7, nor do I know if it happened. One thing I do know, however, is that a proper chain of custody for the microfilm and a sound authentication of the document would have seriously reduced the possibility of manipulation. Having said that, as such matters as chain of custody and evidence authentication didn't seem to matter much to the investigators it is beyond fair and reasonable to question the results of their investigation as well as the methods used.
-
Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation. And without any proper evidence, and an allegation that it did happen, this speculation would not have been allowed in a courtroom. As previously stated, the rules in place in the courts are there to try to ensure that a fair trial happens. There will never be a true trial for LHO. However when we are forming our own opinions as to what happened on 11/22/63, if we intend to be fair and unbiased, I think it is a good idea to therefore keep in mind the rules that apply to the courts.
-
Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation. And without any proper evidence, and an allegation that it did happen, this speculation would not have been allowed in a courtroom. As previously stated, the rules in place in the courts are there to try to ensure that a fair trial happens. There will never be a true trial for LHO. However when we are forming our own opinions as to what happened on 11/22/63, if we intend to be fair and unbiased, I think it is a good idea to therefore keep in mind the rules that apply to the courts.
Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation.
Just like that it wasn't faked or planted is, without proper authentication, pure speculation also.
And without any proper evidence, and an allegation that it did happen, this speculation would not have been allowed in a courtroom.
A judge will decide what he allows in as evidence and what not. What you fail to understand is that nobody needs to speculate about a piece of evidence being faked or planted. When evidence is introduced without a solid chain of custody and/or proper authentication it is sufficient to question the veracity of that piece of evidence.
However when we are forming our own opinions as to what happened on 11/22/63, if we intend to be fair and unbiased, I think it is a good idea to therefore keep in mind the rules that apply to the courts.
Fair enough, but keep also in mind that a trial is by defenition a adversary system in which evidence introduced by one party can be challenged by the other. No allegation or suggestion of fakery or tampering has to be made. It does suffice to question the chain of custody and/or authenticity of a piece of evidence to establish it's veracity or lack there of.
On the other hand, introducing something as evidence doesn't automatically justify the conclusion that that evidence is authentic and/or even provides proof for what has been alleged.
-
What? Marina Oswald was his wife, and Oswald authorised his wife to receive mail.
But enough with the ridiculous diversions, the fact that you don't want to explain the reason why Oswald put A J Hidell on the post box application is duly noted.
I don’t need to “explain a reason”. You can either show that Oswald used Hidell as an alias for himself or you cannot.
-
This is particularly startling and noteworthy when one stops to realize that those making the allegation of conspiracy necessarily have the burden of proof. I mean, it makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that there is a conspiracy here. Now you prove there isn’t.”
A) I made no such allegation
B) Vincent Bugliosi. LOL.
It also makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that Oswald did it. Now prove there was a conspiracy here.”
Yes that Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions. Btw "John", how many cases have you successfully defended?
False appeal to authority and to credentials. This isn’t a felony jury trial. Next?
-
It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, you will continue your game of asking for evidence which you know doesn't exist and then claim some sort of hollow victory, for instance your reason this time is that the writing on the order wasn't authenticated, give me a break.
And you will continue to play the game of pretending that the evidence that does exist is “rock solid” and conclusive. And around we go.
It is indeed pointless to try to have a serious discussion with a faith-based ideologue.
-
I certainly did Martin but using the above example, if a direct print out from Kleins very own Microfilm business records isn't absolute Rock Solid evidence then there is nothing that will convince the hardcore conspiracy theorist.
You don’t know it’s a “direct printout” from the “missing” microfilm. And you don’t know if it is even consistent with Klein’s’ other “business records”. That’s the only one available to look at.
No offence, but all you are doing is regurgitating the exact same arguments that you were making a decade ago.
-
Yet Kleins advertised the 40 inch rifle with a scope for many months? Go figure!
Didn’t you just get done trying to argue that Klein’s didn’t care about the accuracy of their advertisements? Talk about trying to have it both ways.
-
Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation.
Suggesting that Oswald carried a Hidell ID on his person when there is no contemporary record of it, or suggesting that the Klein’s documentation proves that CE139 was shipped to and picked up by Lee Oswald is pure speculation.
-
Pure speculation, aka: purely speculation, aka: only speculation is speculation without any evidence whatsoever. After 59+ years, there isn’t a single speck of evidence that suggests that the fake ID was planted, or that the Klein documentation was altered.
-
Sorry, but it’s your responsibility to authenticate evidence that you are relying on to form your conclusions. You don’t just get to assume it’s authentic until proven otherwise. Anybody can claim they found anything.
-
Pure speculation, aka: purely speculation, aka: only speculation is speculation without any evidence whatsoever. After 59+ years, there isn’t a single speck of evidence that suggests that the fake ID was planted, or that the Klein documentation was altered.
Of course again you are right, notice how "John" is desperately trying to separate each piece of evidence in his woeful efforts to defend Oswald. But when the totality of the evidence is examined we must accept that it was either the singular Oswald or we have a tsunami of deception, lies and fakery on a scale of untold magnitude.
It was either Oswald or;
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kliens coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kliens microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
See Charles, this starts to get real messy and is the reason that "John" won't allow a collective examination of the evidence because it just makes him come across as just another wishful thinking Conspiracy Theorist yet he surreptitiously attempts to distance himself from their community? Bizarre!
JohnM
-
Anybody can try to create doubt about authenticated evidence. Hence the ridiculous rabbit holes that the nay-sayers have been trying to lead people down for 59+ years. However, in a court of law, trying to create doubt about the admitted evidence based purely on speculation isn’t allowed. There has to be an allegation as to the alleged issue with the evidence and some authenticated evidence to support that allegation. The rules in place in the courts are there to try to ensure that a fair trial takes place. If we want to have a fair and unbiased opinion as to what happened on 11/22/63, I suggest that we at least consider those courthouse rules when forming our opinions.
-
Of course again you are right, notice how "John" is desperately trying to separate each piece of evidence in his woeful efforts to defend Oswald. But when the totality of the evidence is examined we must accept that it was either the singular Oswald or we have a tsunami of deception, lies and fakery on a scale of untold magnitude.
It was either Oswald or;
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kliens coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kliens microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
See Charles, this starts to get real messy and is the reason that "John" won't allow a collective examination of the evidence because it just makes him come across as just another wishful thinking Conspiracy Theorist yet he surreptitiously attempts to distance himself from their community? Bizarre!
JohnM
Yes, the subject of the JFK assassination arose in a recent conversation I was having with a nephew. I told him that he could borrow any of my books, and that I would try to answer any questions he had, if he became interested in the subject. He said that he would let me know if he did become interested. However he said that he would never believe anything that the government had to say. I saw no point in furthering the conversation and let it drop. But it sure did remind me of the attitude I see on this forum from some of the participants.
-
Yes, the subject of the JFK assassination arose in a recent conversation I was having with a nephew. I told him that he could borrow any of my books, and that I would try to answer any questions he had, if he became interested in the subject. He said that he would let me know if he did become interested. However he said that he would never believe anything that the government had to say. I saw no point in furthering the conversation and let it drop. But it sure did remind me of the attitude I see on this forum from some of the participants.
Some members can't give a fair and balanced response because they have a clear outspoken problem with authority figures, some even go right to the top and have a problem with people who worship God. A strange way to spend your time!
JohnM
-
But when the totality of the evidence is examined we must accept that it was either the singular Oswald or we have a tsunami of deception, lies and fakery on a scale of untold magnitude.
This is the usual fallacious “my unsubstantiated claims about the evidence are true or else you must prove that a giant conspiracy faked and planted everything” argument.
Nope. Strawman and false dichotomy.
It was either Oswald or;
The Hidell ID was manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID was planted by the Police
The Hidell ID negatives were manufactured by conspirators
The Hidell ID negatives were planted by conspirators in the Paine residence
The Hidell name was inserted by conspirators into the New Orleans post box application records.
The Hidell name was connected To Oswald's New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was used as The "Chapter President" of Oswald's made up Cuba Committee by conspirators.
The Hidell name was forged by conspirators onto Oswald's "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets
The Hidell name was written on membership cards by conspirators other than Marina, who must have lied.
The Hidell name was a play on "Fidel" according to Marina who must have lied
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kliens coupon
The Hidell Kleins coupon addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kliens microfilm
The Hidell name was forged onto the Kleins envelope
The Hidell Kleins Envelope addressed to Oswald was forged onto the Kleins microfilm
The Hidell rifle was never sent to Oswald's PO box
The Hidell newly manufactured microfilm was substituted at some point with Kleins business records microfilm.
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or Police lied
The Hidell ID was admitted by Oswald or a Postal official lied
The Hidell ID was asked of Oswald or an FBI agent lied
The Hidell name was forged onto Oswald Job applications as a reference
The Hidell rifle was photographed with Oswald by either forgery or trickery
The Hidell rifle was planted on the 6th floor of Oswald's work by conspirators
The Hidell revolver coupon was forged by conspirators
The Hidell name was forged onto the Seaport-Traders paperwork
The Hidell revolver was lied about by the Police
The Hidell revolver was substituted by Police
And on and on it goes!
Nope, sorry. Regardless of any outcome of any of these ridiculous rhetorical false dichotomies, you still cannot demonstrate that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself. And even if you could, it still would tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy or Tippit.
This is the true rabbit hole here: “Mytton” going to absurd lengths to avoid actually having to demonstrate the veracity of his claims.
-
Anybody can try to create doubt about authenticated evidence.
What authenticated evidence?
There has to be an allegation as to the alleged issue with the evidence and some authenticated evidence to support that allegation.
So your evidence doesn’t need authentication, but any reasonable doubt that arises from it must have evidence that is authenticated.
How convenient.
-
Yes, the subject of the JFK assassination arose in a recent conversation I was having with a nephew. I told him that he could borrow any of my books, and that I would try to answer any questions he had, if he became interested in the subject. He said that he would let me know if he did become interested. However he said that he would never believe anything that the government had to say. I saw no point in furthering the conversation and let it drop. But it sure did remind me of the attitude I see on this forum from some of the participants.
And I suppose “this must be true because government said so” is any more rational.
-
Some members can't give a fair and balanced response because they have a clear outspoken problem with authority figures, some even go right to the top and have a problem with people who worship God. A strange way to spend your time!
Personally, I couldn’t care less about what you worship. Even Vince Bugliosi. Faith is just not a reliable way of determining what is actually true.
Trolling discussion forums with fake names is also a strange way to spend your time.
-
This is the usual fallacious “my unsubstantiated claims about the evidence are true or else you must prove that a giant conspiracy faked and planted everything” argument.
Nope. Strawman and false dichotomy.
Nope, sorry. Regardless of any outcome of any of these ridiculous rhetorical false dichotomies, you still cannot demonstrate that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself. And even if you could, it still would tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy or Tippit.
This is the true rabbit hole here: “Mytton” going to absurd lengths to avoid actually having to demonstrate the veracity of his claims.
This is the usual fallacious “my unsubstantiated claims about the evidence are true or else you must prove that a giant conspiracy faked and planted everything” argument.
Nope. Strawman and false dichotomy.
At one point or another you have tried to refute almost every point on my long list but your equally long list of objections must equally lead to a logical culmination of an alternative narrative, right?
The Hidell evidence that is directly associated with Oswald was either made/directed by Oswald, or there was other people involved because the mountain of evidence didn't just suddenly magically appear, someone had to create it, plant it and lie about it.
Also consider that someone had the evidence planted in some very unconnected obscure places, then someone had civilians, multiple law enforcement officers and a Postal inspector lie about it?
You must be able to see the can of worms you have opened and it has to go somewhere. Even the OJ defence team realized this and created an alternate story.
The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins, because the alternate conspiracy flavoured narrative by definition leads to a co-ordinated mess of biblical proportions which could have become unstuck in a myriad of ways but for some reason it all went flawlessly, is that how the real World works?
Nope, sorry. Regardless of any outcome of any of these ridiculous rhetorical false dichotomies, you still cannot demonstrate that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself. And even if you could, it still would tell you nothing about who killed Kennedy or Tippit.
That's not quite true, anybody using and ordering rifles and revolvers with an alias strongly suggests that they were planning to use said weapons in a way so that the weapons would not have a direct connection with themselves. While Oswald was stupidly carrying the Hidell ID that doesn't mean it was intentional, in the short time he had to prepared he may have simply forgot, or perhaps he planned on using the Hidell as a "get out of jail card for free" in case he was questioned by Police, maybe he thought he could flash his card and not be Lee Harvey Oswald.
I hope that next time you have a knee jerk response to a piece of evidence that you seriously consider where your alternate narrative leads.
JohnM
-
Personally, I couldn’t care less about what you worship. Even Vince Bugliosi. Faith is just not a reliable way of determining what is actually true.
Trolling discussion forums with fake names is also a strange way to spend your time.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about what you worship.
For the record I worship logic and science with a splash of the occult.
Even Vince Bugliosi.
I admire the man and the way he could present facts was in a class of it's own.
Faith is just not a reliable way of determining what is actually true.
You seem hung up on religious analogies but in this case there is rock solid evidence and it leads all the way to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Trolling discussion forums with fake names is also a strange way to spend your time.
If anything I currently "troll" 1 forum with 1 name.
Btw Conspiracy Theorists (unlike sensible LNers) are a passionate lot and when I used my real name in an unassociated discussion group I was tracked down and my family and myself were violently threatened, therefore I use an alias. Anyway "John" who can prove who any of us are and who is actually typing our replies and why do you think it matters, we all have our own styles and like the unique "Richard" we all can instantly tell who wrote what by simply reading the comment.
JohnM
-
Anybody can try to create doubt about any authenticated evidence. However, courthouse rules provide that pure speculation is not reasonable doubt. Speculations are sometimes abundant outside the courthouse. Inside the courthouse the speculations would legitimately be quashed and could not be considered by the jury. The courthouse rules are there to try to ensure that a fair trial takes place. I think that we should keep them in mind when forming our own opinions about what happened on 11/22/63.
-
Anybody can try to create doubt about authenticated evidence. Hence the ridiculous rabbit holes that the nay-sayers have been trying to lead people down for 59+ years. However, in a court of law, trying to create doubt about the admitted evidence based purely on speculation isn’t allowed. There has to be an allegation as to the alleged issue with the evidence and some authenticated evidence to support that allegation. The rules in place in the courts are there to try to ensure that a fair trial takes place. If we want to have a fair and unbiased opinion as to what happened on 11/22/63, I suggest that we at least consider those courthouse rules when forming our opinions.
However, in a court of law, trying to create doubt about the admitted evidence based purely on speculation isn’t allowed.
You seem to be under the impression that evidence which is admitted by the judge is somehow automatically authenticated. It isn't.
There has to be an allegation as to the alleged issue with the evidence and some authenticated evidence to support that allegation.
Wrong. There does not need to be an allegation of any kind to question or challenge the validity and veracity of a particular piece of evidence. In fact, it is the job of the defense to challenge the authenticity of evidence and they do not need to present an alternative narrative to do so.
-
Anybody can try to create doubt about any authenticated evidence. However, courthouse rules provide that pure speculation is not reasonable doubt. Speculations are sometimes abundant outside the courthouse. Inside the courthouse the speculations would legitimately be quashed and could not be considered by the jury. The courthouse rules are there to try to ensure that a fair trial takes place. I think that we should keep them in mind when forming our own opinions about what happened on 11/22/63.
Anybody can try to create doubt about any authenticated evidence.
Authentication of evidence is part of normal court proceedings. When a prosecutor relies on a particular piece of evidence, he needs to be able to confirm it's authentic. That's why there are rules regarding chain of custody and evidence handling. The creating of doubt takes place prior to the evidence being authenticated.
However, courthouse rules provide that pure speculation is not reasonable doubt.
You don't have to speculate to question the authenticity of a piece of evidence. It is true that you can not simply make up a story without providing supporting evidence, but the defense always can and must insist that a particular piece of evidence is indeed proven to be authentic.
-
Challenging the veracity of evidence based on pure speculation is not allowed. The speculation would be objected to and removed from the record and the jury instructed to ignore it.
-
Challenging the veracity of evidence based on pure speculation is not allowed. The speculation would be objected to and removed from the record and the jury instructed to ignore it.
Which evidence are you referring to as speculation?
-
I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule.
The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility".
" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
JohnM
-
Which evidence are you referring to as speculation?
If you look back a bit in this thread, I pointed out that the perceived “issues” with some of the evidence is pure speculation and that not a spec of evidence that supports the “issues” has been brought up.
-
Challenging the veracity of evidence based on pure speculation is not allowed. The speculation would be objected to and removed from the record and the jury instructed to ignore it.
You can say this a thousand times more and it still would be a meaningless comment and opinion.
The fact of the matter is simply that the veracity of evidence can not be assumed. It needs to be authenticated. A defendant always has the right to question the validity of any evidence that is presented against him in court. He does not have to have a reason for questioning the evidence.
-
I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule.
The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility".
" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
JohnM
The conversation was/is not about the admissibility of evidence.
-
The conversation was/is not about the admissibility of evidence.
This thread went off the rails pages ago, the title of this thread is "Who killed J D Tippit"!
Start a new thread if you want to play "Forum Cop". Hahaha.
Btw Charles is kicking your Ass.
JohnM
-
This thread went off the rails pages ago, the title of this thread is "Who killed J D Tippit"!
Start a new thread if you want to play "Forum Cop". Hahaha.
Btw Charles is kicking your Ass.
JohnM
You've always had poor judgment, John
Btw, it didn't take long for you to return to being the childish nasty invidual we all know.
-
I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule.
The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility".
" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
JohnM
That is exactly right and in addition, the Defense will very rarely spend time in a trial arguing that evidence is faked and/or planted. Doing so makes their position look desperate; casting a bad light on the defendant.
If the evidence has been admitted, it needs to be validated. Once validated, the defense does not spend time arguing that it is not authentic.
-
Questioning the evidence is not the same as speculating that it could possibly have been planted or altered.
-
Questioning the evidence is not the same as speculating that it could possibly have been planted or altered.
So, we agree.... Thumb1:
-
Questioning the evidence is not the same as speculating that it could possibly have been planted or altered.
Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation. It's speculation that the rifle belonged to Oswald et cetera. We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."
The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.
-
Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation. It's speculation that the rifle belonged to Oswald et cetera. We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."
The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.
Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation.
Because that's what it is. If you want to claim that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, you need to prove that.
We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."
The so-called "paper trail" is ambivalent and inconclusive. But even if it wasn't how does paperwork dated in March 1963 prove that Oswald is owner of the rifle found at the TSBD in November 1963?
The photos only prove that Oswald was holding a rifle in March 1963.
There were no prints on the rifle, according to the FBI, who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the crime.
So, if not speculation, how exactly does the paper trail, photos and an alleged print on the rifle prove that the rifle found at the TSBD actually belonged to Oswald?
The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.
Indeed. One side frequently calls assumptions "evidence" and the other side doesn't.
-
Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation. It's speculation that the rifle belonged to Oswald et cetera. We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."
The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.
Exactly, it isn’t pure speculation if there is some probative evidence of it. It appears to me that most of their arguments do not consider probative evidence. If is isn’t direct conclusive evidence they want to ignore it. A jury is required to consider all of the evidence.
-
Exactly, it isn’t pure speculation if there is some probative evidence of it. It appears to me that most of their arguments do not consider probative evidence. If is isn’t direct conclusive evidence they want to ignore it. A jury is required to consider all of the evidence.
Simple question; what is the probative value of a photograph taken in late March 1963 of Oswald holding a rifle?
-
It is up to a jury to determine the facts based only on the evidence that is admitted in the courtroom. No one can tell them how much weight to assign to any evidence. The probative evidence of a fact in question can be more than one piece of evidence. The weights can be combined such that the probability is very high. And if there isn’t any compelling opposing evidence, the fact in question can be concluded to be beyond a reasonable doubt. But all of that is completely up to the jury.
-
It is up to a jury to determine the facts based only on the evidence that is admitted in the courtroom. No one can tell them how much weight to assign to any evidence. The probative evidence of a fact in question can be more than one piece of evidence. The weights can be combined such that the probability is very high. And if there isn’t any compelling opposing evidence, the fact in question can be concluded to be beyond a reasonable doubt. But all of that is completely up to the jury.
Here's a photo of some of the classified documents found at Trump's home/residence/Mar-a-Lago. Is it really his residence? It possibly could be another place. Are they really classified documents? It possibly could be innocuous/personal material and not secrets. Is the photo real? Not faked? It possibly could be faked or photo shopped. Are the documents the ones requested by the government, by the National Archives? They may be different ones.
We could speculate again and again about the evidence here. About the photo and its authenticity and what it shows. But we have more than just the photo. We have a record that shows that Trump kept classified documents. And he stored them at Mar-a-Lago. And in a bathroom/unsecured place. If all you use is this photo - and speculate about it and say there's a *possibility* it's faked - then the evidence can be made to disappear. Trump didn't illegally keep classified materials because the evidence is just speculation and claims. The evidence could be this or that, the evidence could be faked, it could be staged. Do this for each piece. Presto, it disappears.
This is how the Oswald defenders look at the evidence. They characterize it as speculation, as possibly being corrupt or not authentic (obviously, many say it is corrupt and faked), and then wave it away. And *then* ignore the corroborating evidence. Which is also isolated and dismissed as speculation as well. This is not how you reconstruct an event, at how you look at one. You look at the totality of evidence and reconstruct what happened.
(https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1686358157076.png)
-
Ask how Scott Peterson got sentenced to death based on one piece of hair (that matched some hair on Laci’s brush) which was found on a pair of pliers in Scott’s boat. There was more evidence than just the piece of hair.
-
It is up to a jury to determine the facts based only on the evidence that is admitted in the courtroom. No one can tell them how much weight to assign to any evidence. The probative evidence of a fact in question can be more than one piece of evidence. The weights can be combined such that the probability is very high. And if there isn’t any compelling opposing evidence, the fact in question can be concluded to be beyond a reasonable doubt. But all of that is completely up to the jury.
Which brings us straight back to the difference of opinion about the veracity, validity, authenticity and probative value of the evidence, displayed on this forum on a daily basis.
-
Ask how Scott Peterson got sentenced to death based on one piece of hair (that matched some hair on Laci’s brush) which was found on a pair of pliers in Scott’s boat. There was more evidence than just the piece of hair.
What exactly is your point?
There was a truckload of evidence against O.J. Simpson, yet he walked free due to a glove that did not fit (over his plastic gloves) and a catchy punchline.
-
The hair by itself, like Steve’s photo, needed to be combined with other evidence to become more persuasive.
-
The hair by itself, like Steve’s photo, needed to be combined with other evidence to become more persuasive.
So, Scott Peterson didn't get sentenced to death based on one piece of hair after all?
Most of the other evidence was highly circumstantial and there was evidence manipulation and problems with the jury in that case as well. The prosecution argued that Laci's hair could only have gotten on the boat after her death as she was never near that boat while alive. However, a police officer was found to have excluded from his report that a witness he talked to had said that she saw Laci near the boat a day before her death. Apparently, the jury did not find that a big deal.
In court, things are very seldomly black and white.
As far as circumstantial cases go, what it basically means is that the prosecutor is using (very often) scant physical evidence to tell a story that might convince the jury. Very often the pieces of physical evidence can be interpreted in more ways than one which also allows for a different story to be told using the same evidence.
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but just in case I am wrong, why don't you tell us in simple terms what point you are trying to make?
-
If you look back a bit in this thread, I pointed out that the perceived “issues” with some of the evidence is pure speculation and that not a spec of evidence that supports the “issues” has been brought up.
Right, but I wanted to know which specific "evidence" you citied as pure speculation.
-
Here's a photo of some of the classified documents found at Trump's home/residence/Mar-a-Lago. Is it really his residence? It possibly could be another place. Are they really classified documents? It possibly could be innocuous/personal material and not secrets. Is the photo real? Not faked? It possibly could be faked or photo shopped. Are the documents the ones requested by the government, by the National Archives? They may be different ones.
We could speculate again and again about the evidence here. About the photo and its authenticity and what it shows. But we have more than just the photo. We have a record that shows that Trump kept classified documents. And he stored them at Mar-a-Lago. And in a bathroom/unsecured place. If all you use is this photo - and speculate about it and say there's a *possibility* it's faked - then the evidence can be made to disappear. Trump didn't illegally keep classified materials because the evidence is just speculation and claims. The evidence could be this or that, the evidence could be faked, it could be staged. Do this for each piece. Presto, it disappears.
This is how the Oswald defenders look at the evidence. They characterize it as speculation, as possibly being corrupt or not authentic (obviously, many say it is corrupt and faked), and then wave it away. And *then* ignore the corroborating evidence. Which is also isolated and dismissed as speculation as well. This is not how you reconstruct an event, at how you look at one. You look at the totality of evidence and reconstruct what happened.
(https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1686358157076.png)
Trying to compare Criminal Donald stealing and hoarding top secret classified documents and refusing to give them back to Lee Harvey Oswald is comparing apples to oranges.
Criminal Donald had months to give back the top secret classified documents and he refused. So, the FBI had no other choice to go in to his residence and retrieve the classified documents stored all over the place. Donnie was caught red handed with the goods and he's also on tape admitting that the documents were still classified. The DOJ has solid evidence against Donnie.
In the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, he was not found at the scene of the crime with the "smoking gun" in his possession. There is no tape of Oswald admitting he was the assassin. So, you can't compare these two situations.
People have every right to ask questions about what it being presented to them as evidence, and once it checks out, then it can be confirmed as legitimate.
-
What exactly is your point?
There was a truckload of evidence against O.J. Simpson, yet he walked free due to a glove that did not fit (over his plastic gloves) and a catchy punchline.
That's a bit simplistic, isn't it?
There was a plethora of reasons why Simpson walked free and yes the glove not fitting was a great TV moment but there was also the Rodney King incident the year before, the location of the trial, the proportion of black jurors, Mark Fuhrman, the many omissions by the Prosecution, the DNA evidence being allegedly contaminated, the woeful effort of the prosecution, Johnny Cochrane, the perceived "dream team" etc etc.
And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?
JohnM
-
You've always had poor judgment, John
Btw, it didn't take long for you to return to being the childish nasty invidual we all know.
You've always had poor judgment, John
Huh?, Read the thread title "Who killed J D Tippit?" and then read the last few pages.
Btw, it didn't take long for you to return to being the childish nasty invidual we all know.
How is stating a fact childish or nasty?
If I was being childish I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, you pooh pooh bumhead"
If I was being nasty I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, Pathetic"
With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.
I rest my case.
JohnM
-
Yes, but when we say evidence shows that, for example, a rifle belonging to Oswald was found in the building they dismiss it as speculation.
Because that's what it is. If you want to claim that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, you need to prove that.
We show the evidence, e.g., paper trail, photos, prints on it, for this and they again reply "Speculation, speculation, speculation."
The so-called "paper trail" is ambivalent and inconclusive. But even if it wasn't how does paperwork dated in March 1963 prove that Oswald is owner of the rifle found at the TSBD in November 1963?
The photos only prove that Oswald was holding a rifle in March 1963.
There were no prints on the rifle, according to the FBI, who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the crime.
So, if not speculation, how exactly does the paper trail, photos and an alleged print on the rifle prove that the rifle found at the TSBD actually belonged to Oswald?
The two sides may use the same words, terms, ideas but they have a fundamentally different idea as to what they mean and how to apply them.
Indeed. One side frequently calls assumptions "evidence" and the other side doesn't.
If you want to claim that the rifle found at the TSBD belonged to Oswald, you need to prove that.
Again with this nonsense? As demonstrated oh so painfully in the last few pages, is that you clearly don't know how this works, let me set you straight.
The presented evidence is that Oswald buying C2766 was proved beyond all doubt, the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact. In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.
The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.
JohnM
-
Right, but I wanted to know which specific "evidence" you citied as pure speculation.
The point I am trying to make is that speculation is disallowed by the courts. By definition speculation is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.
It appears to me that the photo of the contents of the wallet was taken of an exhibit of the actual items. This exhibit was in 2013. Speculation that these items represent a complete accounting of all that was in the wallet when LHO was arrested is pure speculation.
As part of a new exhibit called Three Shots Were Fired marking the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination, the Newseum in Washington DC put on display several never-before-seen artifacts from that fateful day in November, including personal items that were in Oswald's possession on the day of his arrest.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307792/Inside-assassins-wallet-Never-seen-pictures-Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-personal-items-display.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307792/Inside-assassins-wallet-Never-seen-pictures-Lee-Harvey-Oswalds-personal-items-display.html)
See post #312 in this thread if you need further information. My point is that this type of speculation (theorizing and conjecture) would not be allowed in a courtroom. It isn’t difficult to find other such instances in this thread that I pointed out. You can do it….
-
That's a bit simplistic, isn't it?
There was a plethora of reasons why Simpson walked free and yes the glove not fitting was a great TV moment but there was also the Rodney King incident the year before, the location of the trial, the proportion of black jurors, Mark Fuhrman, the many omissions by the Prosecution, the DNA evidence being allegedly contaminated, the woeful effort of the prosecution, Johnny Cochrane, the perceived "dream team" etc etc.
And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?
JohnM
That's a bit simplistic, isn't it?
Sure, it was intented to be, so that people like you would understand.
It's just as simplistic as Charles Collins saying: "Ask how Scott Peterson got sentenced to death based on one piece of hair (that matched some hair on Laci’s brush) which was found on a pair of pliers in Scott’s boat."
And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?
Yes, that would be justice. Because a trial is not really about right or wrong, guilt or innocent, it's about who has the best narrative to convince the jury.
Huh?, Read the thread title "Who killed J D Tippit?" and then read the last few pages.
How is stating a fact childish or nasty?
If I was being childish I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, you pooh pooh bumhead"
If I was being nasty I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, Pathetic"
With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.
I rest my case.
JohnM
Huh?, Read the thread title "Who killed J D Tippit?" and then read the last few pages.
That's not what I was talking about, which once again confirms your poor judgment. You don't even understand what I was talking about.
How is stating a fact childish or nasty?
What "fact" would that be?
If I was being childish I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, you pooh pooh bumhead"
If I was being nasty I would say "Charles is kicking your Ass, Pathetic"
Why are you so desperate to clean up your childish nasty remarks?
With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.
Except, Charles wasn't presenting any evidence at all. He is only quoting from standard jury instructions (anybody who is on line can do that) and I agreed with most of his interpretations. Which means that your "conclusion" is nothing more than your usual BS.
I rest my case.
I wish you would. It would be beneficial to many people.
Btw, your desperate attempt to justify your own pathetic comments is hilarious. You just can't help yourself, right? Thumb1:
-
Again with this nonsense? As demonstrated oh so painfully in the last few pages, is that you clearly don't know how this works, let me set you straight.
The presented evidence is that Oswald buying C2766 was proved beyond all doubt, the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact. In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.
The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.
JohnM
Thank you for sharing your flawed biased opinion.
the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact.
This goes right up there with "Richard Smith"'s'; "the evidence that Oswald ran down the stairs after the shots were fired is that it happened"
Here's a shocker for you; I disagree that it is an undeniable fact and your can't prove me wrong!
In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.
If it existed, I could show you a real time video of the events showing that Oswald didn't shoot anybody and you still wouldn't have any doubt in the official narrative. That's what happens in a cult!
The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.
I wouldn't want to live in your reality.
-
The point I am trying to make is that speculation is disallowed by the courts. By definition speculation is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.
See post #312 in this thread if you need further information. My point is that this type of speculation (theorizing and conjecture) would not be allowed in a courtroom. It isn’t difficult to find other such instances in this thread that I pointed out. You can do it….
If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.
That's not speculation. There are two matters of absolute fact here; (1) the National Archives holds all the evidence in the JFK case and (2) there is no reason for the National Archives to exclude the fake Hidell ID from the content of the wallet so many years after the fact. Yet, the fake Hidell ID isn't there. That's the second absolute fact!
The suggestion that the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Paul Bentley took the wallet from Oswald in the car is supported by the fact that none of the officers who were in the car with Oswald mentioned the Hidell ID in contemporary reports. Bentley himself was interviewed on television the day after the arrest and never said anything about two different ID's. He wasn't called to testify before the WC and the two officers that did testify (Hill and Carroll) could not get beyond (I'm paraphrasing) statements like "I seem to remember hearing a second name but I can't say for sure".
So, if we return to the court setting you like so much; the defense would call Bentley, Hill and Carroll and simply destroy them. Then they would call Westbrook, McCroy and Barrett to determine what they found at the Tippit scene. And then they would ask the question; what happened to the wallet that was found at the Tippit scene.....
-
If you want an example here is one where a photo taken about 50-years after the assassination of some items loaned by the national archives to a temporary exhibit is being used to suggest the fake ID was not in LHO’s possession when he was arrested.
That's not speculation. There are two matters of absolute fact here; (1) the National Archives holds all the evidence in the JFK case and (2) there is no reason for the National Archives to exclude the fake Hidell ID from the content of the wallet so many years after the fact. Yet, the fake Hidell ID isn't there. That's the second absolute fact!
The suggestion that the fake Hidell ID wasn't in the wallet Paul Bentley took the wallet from Oswald in the car is supported by the fact that none of the officers who were in the car with Oswald mentioned the Hidell ID in contemporary reports. Bentley himself was interviewed on television the day after the arrest and never said anything about two different ID's. He wasn't called to testify before the WC and the two officers that did testify (Hill and Carroll) could not get beyond (I'm paraphrasing) statements like "I seem to remember hearing a second name but I can't say for sure".
So, if we return to the court setting you like so much; the defense would call Bentley, Hill and Carroll and simply destroy them. Then they would call Westbrook, McCroy and Barrett to determine what they found at the Tippit scene. And then they would ask the question; what happened to the wallet that was found at the Tippit scene.....
The photo taken in 2013 is not firm evidence because there is no evidence whatsoever that the items in that photo are supposed to be a complete inventory of what was in the wallet when LHO was arrested.
-
Who was Gary Eugene Marlow " The Raven " ?
-
The photo taken in 2013 is not firm evidence because there is no evidence whatsoever that the items in that photo are supposed to be a complete inventory of what was in the wallet when LHO was arrested.
In all fairness to Martin, I think Martin honestly believed that when he initially posted that photo it was actually taken on the weekend following the assassination. And yes to any sane person, the photo was obviously taken much much later but consider who we are dealing with.
JohnM
-
The photo taken in 2013 is not firm evidence because there is no evidence whatsoever that the items in that photo are supposed to be a complete inventory of what was in the wallet when LHO was arrested.
So, now you are saying that the National Archives can't be relied upon to safeguard the evidence?
-
In all fairness to Martin, I think Martin honestly believed that when he initially posted that photo it was actually taken on the weekend following the assassination. And yes to any sane person, the photo was obviously taken much much later but consider who we are dealing with.
JohnM
I think Martin honestly believed that when he initially posted that photo it was actually taken on the weekend following the assassination.
Another example of your poor judgment.
And yes to any sane person, the photo was obviously taken much much later but consider who we are dealing with.
The National Archives just hold the evidence. You seem to argue that they would have a reason to manipulate the evidence after the fact. Wow!
-
Thank you for sharing your flawed biased opinion.
the fact that the same rifle(C2766) that was sent to Oswald was discovered on the 6th floor of where Oswald worked doesn't need to be proved because it's an undeniable fact.
This goes right up there with "Richard Smith"'s'; "the evidence that Oswald ran down the stairs after the shots were fired is that it happened"
Here's a shocker for you; I disagree that it is an undeniable fact and your can't prove me wrong!
In court you could try and poke holes in Kleins business records or claim the rifle was planted etc but so far you haven't generated even the slightest doubt.
If it existed, I could show you a real time video of the events showing that Oswald didn't shoot anybody and you still wouldn't have any doubt in the official narrative. That's what happens in a cult!
The reality is that a competent defence would have no other option than to accept this evidence and try to free Oswald on some other legal technicality.
I wouldn't want to live in your reality.
I disagree that it is an undeniable fact and your can't prove me wrong!
It's not up to me to prove anything to you, you'd have to convince a Jury that the Kleins paperwork was fraudulent and that the rifle(C2766) on the Kleins paperwork was a different rifle(C2766) that was found on the 6th floor, and besides your opinion, do you believe that you have presented contrary evidence that proves your case?
If it existed, I could show you a real time video of the events showing that Oswald didn't shoot anybody and you still wouldn't have any doubt in the official narrative. That's what happens in a cult!
Nice analogy, for example the authentic autopsy photos positively reinforce the authentic Zapruder Film yet many "Cult" members still cast aspersions on what is shown.
JohnM
-
So, now you are saying that the National Archives can't be relied upon to safeguard the evidence?
No, I am saying that there is no evidence that the National Archives intended to provide a complete inventory of what was in the wallet when LHO was arrested?
-
Gary Eugene Marlow was said to have been the killer of J. D. Tippit . Gary Marlow was a very good friend of James Files . David Atlee Phillips was the handler of Files and Marlow .
-
No, I am saying that there is no evidence that the National Archives intended to provide a complete inventory of what was in the wallet when LHO was arrested?
Really? So. what was their reason to exclude the fake Hidell ID?
-
Really? So. what was their reason to exclude the fake Hidell ID?
What an absurd go nowhere question.
By the time of the exhibit, the Hidell ID has been firmly established to be in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest, it's clear that the Hidell ID which actually exists was elsewhere, perhaps in another section showing all the Hidell evidence.
The best idea is, why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself because all Charles, others and myself can do, is give logical speculation as to it's whereabouts. And whatever the answer is, it won't satisfy you because you have a closed mind for any answer that doesn't include conspiracy.
JohnM
-
What an absurd go nowhere question.
By the time of the exhibit, the Hidell ID has been firmly established to be in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest, it's clear that the Hidell ID which actually exists was elsewhere, perhaps in another section showing all the Hidell evidence.
The best idea is why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself because all Charles, others and myself can do, is give logical speculation as to it's whereabouts. And whatever the answer is, it won't satisfy you because you have a closed mind for any answer that doesn't include conspiracy.
JohnM
By the time of the exhibit, the Hidell ID has been firmly established to be in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest
Really? So why did they exclude the fake Hidell ID?
it's clear that the Hidell ID which actually exists was elsewhere, perhaps in another section showing all the Hidell evidence.
Thanks for sharing your pathetic opinion.
The best idea is why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself
Already did.
-
The best idea is why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself
Already did.
I find that hard to believe, but do tell, what did they say?
JohnM
-
At one point or another you have tried to refute almost every point on my long list but your equally long list of objections must equally lead to a logical culmination of an alternative narrative, right?
No, that’s not right. The burden is always on the person making the positive claim. If you cannot sufficiently meet your burden (for the reasons given), then your conclusions are invalid. Nobody has to come up with another narrative. The default isn’t your unproven hypothesis, it’s the null hypothesis until something else is proven.
The Hidell evidence that is directly associated with Oswald was either made/directed by Oswald, or there was other people involved because the mountain of evidence didn't just suddenly magically appear, someone had to create it, plant it and lie about it.
Of course somebody made the Hidell ID. It doesn’t just follow that it was made by Oswald or that it was made before the assassination. You don’t prove that he did merely by pretending that a giant conspiracy is the only other possibility.
-
You seem hung up on religious analogies but in this case there is rock solid evidence and it leads all the way to Lee Harvey Oswald.
We’ve seen what you consider “rock solid evidence”. In the case of the 53 pieces trotted out by your admiree, 46 are not evidence at all (at least with regard to JFK), 4 point to a particular weapon, not a person, and 8 items (including some of the above) are questionable or tainted in some way. “Rock solid” is wishful thinking.
Btw Conspiracy Theorists (unlike sensible LNers) are a passionate lot and when I used my real name in an unassociated discussion group I was tracked down and my family and myself were violently threatened, therefore I use an alias.
I’m sincerely sorry this happened to you. And this in no way excuses threats, but maybe you and “Richard” wouldn’t have to worry so much about it if the use of an alias wasn’t a cover to be jerks to people. There are some unhinged and abusive people on all sides.
-
And yes it's a cautionary tale and under the right similar conditions, a clever Defence team could again manipulate, divert and twist the truth and have Oswald acquitted, But would that be Justice?
In one sense, yes, because what a jury decides is “justice” by definition. But I could make the same argument about a clever prosecution team manipulating, diverting, and twisting the truth and having Oswald convicted.
-
With Charles presenting real evidence of how the court system works as compared to your fantasies the only conclusion that can be derived is, "Charles is kicking your Ass", you might not like it but it is a rock solid fact.
I rest my case.
One LN evangelist thinks another LN evangelist makes a better argument.
Stop the presses.
-
The point I am trying to make is that speculation is disallowed by the courts. By definition speculation is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
Great. Where’s your “firm evidence” that Oswald was carrying the Hidell ID at the time of his arrest? And what it your “firm evidence” that this claim pertains to who shot the president?
Or is “firm evidence” only required to question what a cop claims is true?
-
It's not up to me to prove anything to you, you'd have to convince a Jury that the Kleins paperwork was fraudulent and that the rifle(C2766) on the Kleins paperwork was a different rifle(C2766) that was found on the 6th floor,
No, you would need to make a convincing argument that this particular rifle was delivered to and picked up by Oswald, and some alleged “paperwork” from “missing microfilm” doesn’t do that.
-
What an absurd go nowhere question.
By the time of the exhibit, the Hidell ID has been firmly established to be in Oswald's wallet at the time of his arrest, it's clear that the Hidell ID which actually exists was elsewhere, perhaps in another section showing all the Hidell evidence.
The best idea is, why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself because all Charles, others and myself can do, is give logical speculation as to it's whereabouts. And whatever the answer is, it won't satisfy you because you have a closed mind for any answer that doesn't include conspiracy.
JohnM
"logical speculation" LOL
Speculation is most times self-serving and hardly logical.
you have a closed mind for any answer that doesn't include conspiracy.
Really? In all my time on the board, I haven't claimed once that there was a conspiracy. You really must be frustrated that I don't blindly accept your BS claims. Poor Johnny :D :D :D :D
-
The best idea is why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself
Already did.
I find that hard to believe, but do tell, what did they say?
JohnM
-
Why was the fake ID not included in the exhibit? I have no way to know why. There are a multitude of possible answers. But I could only venture a guess as to why. Here is a hypothetical question though: If the national archives actually did intend to include a complete inventory of what was in LHO’s wallet when he was arrested, wouldn’t they include the money that LHO was reportedly carrying at the time?
-
Why was the fake ID not included in the exhibit? I have no way to know why. There are a multitude of possible answers. But I could only venture a guess as to why. Here is a hypothetical question though: If the national archives actually did intend to include a complete inventory of what was in LHO’s wallet when he was arrested, wouldn’t they include the money that LHO was reportedly carrying at the time?
I don't know what their intention was, but a few dollar bills isn't quite the same as a vital piece of evidence in the case against Oswald, don't you think?
But you keep on going on about the photo and the exhibit and ignore the memo written on 11/29/63 by W.D. Griffith, to Mr. Conrad and several other high ranking FBI officials, which says that ASAC Dallas Kyle G. Clark has learned from the DPD that they forgot to photograph Oswald's wallet and it's content. They (the DPD) request that they be furnished with photographs of those items.
According to the memo, the wallet contained photographs of Oswald, his wife and a baby, as well as various Civil Service, Social Security and other identification cards. What isn't mentioned is a fake Hidell ID card.
-
I don't know what their intention was, but a few dollar bills isn't quite the same as a vital piece of evidence in the case against Oswald, don't you think?
But you keep on going on about the photo and the exhibit and ignore the memo written on 11/29/63 by W.D. Griffith, to Mr. Conrad and several other high ranking FBI officials, which says that ASAC Dallas Kyle G. Clark has learned from the DPD that they forgot to photograph Oswald's wallet and it's content. They (the DPD) request that they be furnished with photographs of those items.
According to the memo, the wallet contained photographs of Oswald, his wife and a baby, as well as various Civil Service, Social Security and other identification cards. What isn't mentioned is a fake Hidell ID card.
Do you think that it is possible that “various…and other identification cards” just might include the fake ID? It certainly could in my opinion. There is no reason that it needed to be specifically singled out and specified. “Various” and “other” certainly could describe it without specifically specifying it by the Hidell name. So in my opinion this, memo amounts to nothing at all that could be used to positively say the fake ID wasn’t there.
-
Do you think that it is possible that “various…and other identification cards” just might include the fake ID? It certainly could in my opinion. There is no reason that it needed to be specifically singled out and specified. “Various” and “other” certainly could describe it without specifically specifying it by the Hidell name. So in my opinion this, memo amounts to nothing at all that could be used to positively say the fake ID wasn’t there.
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
Exactly Charles! Well done!
"other identification cards" = "Hidell ID"
JohnM
-
Do you think that it is possible that “various…and other identification cards” just might include the fake ID? It certainly could in my opinion. There is no reason that it needed to be specifically singled out and specified. “Various” and “other” certainly could describe it without specifically specifying it by the Hidell name. So in my opinion this, memo amounts to nothing at all that could be used to positively say the fake ID wasn’t there.
In this case anything seems to be possible.
So in my opinion this, memo amounts to nothing at all that could be used to positively say the fake ID wasn’t there.
Of course not. How can you positively prove that something wasn't there?
By itself the memo isn't conclusive, that's true, but there is more circumstantial evidence that suggests the Hidell ID wasn't in Oswald's wallet. Paul Bentley, who took the wallet from Oswald, never ever mentioned having seen a Hidell ID in that wallet. The other three officers didn't mention a ID in a different name than Oswald either, for 6 months, until two of them (Hill and Carroll) suddenly started to vaguely "remember" hearing something about it. DPD forgot to photograph the wallet and it's content.
All this suggestes that the fake Hidell ID either wasn't a vital piece of evidence to the DPD or, alternatively, it simply wasn't there when Oswald was arrested.
-
Thumb1: Thumb1: Thumb1:
Exactly Charles! Well done!
"other identification cards" = "Hidell ID"
JohnM
Some people are so desperate to keep their questionable narrative alive that they will jump to any conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever.
-
Some people are so desperate to keep their questionable narrative alive that they will jump to any conclusion based on no evidence whatsoever.
Sorry Martin.
It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.
But do keep desperately trying to discover your very own "questionable narrative"! Hahahahaha.
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin.
It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.
But do keep desperately trying to discover your very own "questionable narrative"! Hahahahaha.
JohnM
It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.
All in your humble opinion of course, right?
-
It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.
All in your humble opinion of course, right?
Well yeah, based on the evidence there was no conspiracy and on the previous page you just said you've never once claimed there was a conspiracy, we agree, so what's the problem?
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin.
It means that there was no conspiracy and no "questionable narrative" or no "Law enforcement grapevine" and no "Group think psyche"LOL
And most importantly nobody lied in their testimony, they all simply told the truth.
But do keep desperately trying to discover your very own "questionable narrative"! Hahahahaha.
JohnM
"No evidence whatsoever." This was always going to be the end of this, the result. He won't say the evidence is inconclusive or not persuasive or questionable. No, he dismisses it completely.
Years and years of this method: say the evidence was "possibly" faked, make impossible demands about proving its authenticity, raise the "chain of custody" complaint (boy, they do like this one; it sounds so smart), and then wave it all away as "no evidence whatsoever."
Classic conspiracy thinking. RFK, Jr. is going around using this approach on the vaccines. He is quite, well, insane.
-
Well yeah, based on the evidence there was no conspiracy and on the previous page you just said you've never once claimed there was a conspiracy, we agree, so what's the problem?
JohnM
"No evidence whatsoever." This was always going to be the end of this, the result. He won't say the evidence is inconclusive or not persuasive or questionable. No, he dismisses it completely.
Years and years of this method: say the evidence was "possibly" faked, make impossible demands about proving its authenticity, raise the "chain of custody" complaint (boy, they do like this one; it sounds so smart), and then wave it all away as "no evidence whatsoever."
Classic conspiracy thinking. RFK, Jr. is going around using this approach on the vaccines. He is quite, well, insane.
He won't say the evidence is inconclusive or not persuasive or questionable. No, he dismisses it completely.
If you are talking about me, then you really need to read my posts before making such a pathetically false statement.
Years and years of this method: say the evidence was "possibly" faked, make impossible demands about proving its authenticity, raise the "chain of custody" complaint (boy, they do like this one; it sounds so smart), and then wave it all away as "no evidence whatsoever."
The classic LN whining about "the nasty man who is asking for evidence I don't have" BS
-
Well yeah, based on the evidence there was no conspiracy and on the previous page you just said you've never once claimed there was a conspiracy, we agree, so what's the problem?
JohnM
Oh boy.... what is it with you and misrepresentations?
based on the evidence there was no conspiracy
What evidence would that be? Btw, I never claimed or said that either.
you've never once claimed there was a conspiracy
True and I have also never claimed there wasn't one....
we agree, so what's the problem?
The only problem I see is your complete inability to comprehend even the most basic information. But I'm used to that by now, so no worries.....
-
Do you think that it is possible that “various…and other identification cards” just might include the fake ID? It certainly could in my opinion. There is no reason that it needed to be specifically singled out and specified. “Various” and “other” certainly could describe it without specifically specifying it by the Hidell name. So in my opinion this, memo amounts to nothing at all that could be used to positively say the fake ID wasn’t there.
This is the usual “it’s not impossible, therefore it’s true” argument.
-
Oh boy.... what is it with you and misrepresentations?
based on the evidence there was no conspiracy
What evidence would that be? Btw, I never claimed or said that either.
you've never once claimed there was a conspiracy
True and I have also never claimed there wasn't one....
we agree, so what's the problem?
The only problem I see is your complete inability to comprehend even the most basic information. But I'm used to that by now, so no worries.....
What evidence would that be?
The fact that after almost 60 years, there is still absolutely no evidence of conspiracy, not one group has been named and no other shooter has been named.
After the cumulative evidence in hundreds of CT books and thousands of internet posts which are all constantly combing through every written word in the WCR and the 26 volumes and the further research of interviewing or investigating or muckraking decent people and there is still no evidence of any organisation behind the crime, no evidence of any evidence manipulation and no evidence of an alternate shooter or shooters.
Therefore, "based on the evidence" provided by almost 60 years of intense and at times desperate conspiracy research we can only conclude that there was no conspiracy.
And the end result for any sane person can only be that 1 man took his rifle to work and shot the President, A crime solved by the end of the very first weekend.
True and I have also never claimed there wasn't one....
So even though you live and breathe to discredit any and all investigations concluding that Oswald was the solitary gunman, you are pretending to be a fence sitter, nice!
The only problem I see is your complete inability to comprehend even the most basic information.
What, the information that you believe that leads to a conspiracy? :D
JohnM
-
The fact that after almost 60 years, there is still absolutely no evidence of conspiracy, not one group has been named and no other shooter has been named.
After the cumulative evidence in hundreds of CT books and thousands of internet posts which are all constantly combing through every written word in the WCR and the 26 volumes and the further research of interviewing or investigating or muckraking decent people and there is still no evidence of any organisation behind the crime, no evidence of any evidence manipulation and no evidence of an alternate shooter or shooters.
Therefore, "based on the evidence" provided by almost 60 years of intense and at times desperate conspiracy research we can only conclude that there was no conspiracy.
And the end result for any sane person can only be that 1 man took his rifle to work and shot the President, A crime solved by the end of the very first weekend.
The fact that after almost 60 years, there is still absolutely no evidence of conspiracy,
There's also isn't conclusive evidence that is persuasive enough to convince a majority of the people that Oswald acted alone.
All you've got is a highly contrived story that leaves way too many basic questions unanswered for something that is supposed to be a simple murder.
Your entire argument is disingenuous as no outsider has ever had access to the physical evidence or had any legal power to investigate this case properly.
Even the HSCA found the investigation by the Warren Commission and the FBI into a possible conspiracy seriously flawed.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMrqDc9R/HSCA-Conspiracy.jpg)
And the end result for any sane person can only be that 1 man took his rifle to work and shot the President,
Nope, it's the easy solution for those who are too shallow to dig deeper, are simply to superficial to see through the charade that is the official narrative or just can not deal with the possibility that their Government lied to them. And then of course there are the trolls who will make all sorts of bogus claims and run away when they are challenged.
So even though you live and breathe to discredit any and all investigations concluding that Oswald was the solitary gunman, you are pretending to be a fence sitter, nice!
Where did you get the notion that I want to discredit all the investigations, when I actually don't? Do I feel that the most important investigation (the WC) was seriously flawed? Yes. Do I think Dallas police and the FBI dropped the ball in their handling of the evidence and investigation? Sure. But I have no problem with most of the evidence the investigations produced. I do, however, rather frequently, have a massive problem with the flawed and sometimes utterly false conclusions based on that evidence by zealots like you.
I'm not pretending to be anything. I don't pretend to "know" all the ins and outs of this case and throw "learn the evidence" BS around nor do I pretend to know better than others what the actual "truth" really is. That person would be you. You are far better at pretence than I even can, will and want to be.
What, the information that you believe that leads to a conspiracy? :D
JohnM
So you don't even comprehend my remark.... Wow!
-
The fact that after almost 60 years, there is still absolutely no evidence of conspiracy, not one group has been named and no other shooter has been named.
After the cumulative evidence in hundreds of CT books and thousands of internet posts which are all constantly combing through every written word in the WCR and the 26 volumes and the further research of interviewing or investigating or muckraking decent people and there is still no evidence of any organisation behind the crime, no evidence of any evidence manipulation and no evidence of an alternate shooter or shooters.
And still no good reason to believe that the shooter you have named actually committed the crime.
No wonder you have to try to shift the burden.
-
Even the HSCA found the investigation by the Warren Commission and the FBI into a possible conspiracy seriously flawed.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CMrqDc9R/HSCA-Conspiracy.jpg)
Thanks Martin, I'm so glad that you brought the HSCA into this. Thumb1:
Conclusions regarding the Kennedy assassination
On the Kennedy assassination, the HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:
[1] Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
The HSCA investigation concluded that Oswald pulled the trigger and fired the shots that struck and killed the President. Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Thanks Martin, I'm so glad that you brought the HSCA into this. Thumb1:
Conclusions regarding the Kennedy assassination
On the Kennedy assassination, the HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:
[1] Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
The HSCA investigation concluded that Oswald pulled the trigger and fired the shots that struck and killed the President. Thumb1: Thumb1:
JohnM
A direct quote from the report;
"The committe found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy"
Now, what part of that finding did you not understand?
You gotta love it when LNs cite the HSCA but ignore their conclusion that the WC/FBI investigation was seriously flawed and then attack the HSCA over their findings of a 4th shot from the Grassy Knoll.
Guys like you are so pathetic. Trying to score a quick point but when it comes down to it running away from any serious opposition. Oops, did I just describe a troll?.... Yeah it seems I did.
-
You gotta love it when LNs cite the HSCA but ignore their conclusion that the WC/FBI investigation was seriously flawed and then attack the HSCA over their findings of a 4th shot from the Grassy Knoll.
Exactly.
“‘Gubmint thought so’ is good enough for me! Except when it isn’t.”
-
The WC timeline of Oswalds actions is a simple to understand timeline that works as long as one is willing to ignore/dismiss key witnesses like Dorothy Garner, and Carolyn Arnold, Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, and about 2/3rds of the ear witnesses who heard the last 2 shots fired too close together to be plausibly coming from an old MC bolt action rifle.
Some witnesses like Harold Norman, who spaced the 3 shots spread in about 4 secs of time (approx) per recorded interviews as well as his testimony at a mock trial (Bugliosi v Spence) , are accepted partly , but dismissed otherwise whenever they state something that upsets the basic simple theory that Oswald was the lone assassin.
Other witnesses like Bob Jackson, and Malcolm Couch whom both saw a rifle being “slowly withdrawn” from the 6th floor SE window of TSBD, seem to have been left out of the timeline equation probably because the additional time added to the escape from the 6th floor to 2nd floor lunchroom makes it virtually impossible for Oswald to ever have descended to the 2nd floor landing by 75 secs or even 85 secs post shots.
Then there are the witnesses statement related to the Tippet scene such as Markam, Bowley , and Benevides, as well as the 1:15 pm DOA document from the emergency room doctor , which establishes a timeline of Tippet being shot approx 1:07 pm.
Then the timeline conflict of the bus transfer ticket being issued not earlier than 15 minutes prior to the expiration time of 1:00pm (= issued at 12:45) would make it impossible for Oswald to be entering Walleys taxi between 12:30-12:45 (per Walleys manifest.)So the bus driver McWatters, the dutiful employee who made it evident from his WC testimony how he followed the company rules,just conveniently in this one particular way, violates the ticket rules and issues tickets well… maybe just a little earlier than 12:45…
So the mountain of evidence is really just a mountain of “fuzzy facts” that can be listed in a way which makes it appear to be a logical argument, but really is just a phantom construction that omits all other facts and statements which contradict the theory.
-
A direct quote from the report;
"The committe found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy"
Now, what part of that finding did you not understand?
You gotta love it when LNs cite the HSCA but ignore their conclusion that the WC/FBI investigation was seriously flawed and then attack the HSCA over their findings of a 4th shot from the Grassy Knoll.
Guys like you are so pathetic. Trying to score a quick point but when it comes down to it running away from any serious opposition. Oops, did I just describe a troll?.... Yeah it seems I did.
Guys like you are so pathetic.
Why shoot the messenger and why so angry?
Let's start with the HSCA's Number One finding that "1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President." and don't you forget it!
A direct quote from the report;
"The committe found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy"
"probably killed as a result of conspiracy"
"probably" doesn't sound that they were so sure of any conspiracy!
And always remember that 15 years later they couldn't find from any evidence available to them that the Soviets, Cuban Government, anti Castro Cuban groups, national syndicate of organized crime were involved and concluded that "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy"!
But they do concede "that does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved." Wow Thats some rock solid evidence of Conspiracy? LOL
But go ahead and rely on "probably" and "may have been" and completely ignore the HSCA's Number One Conclusion "1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President."
You gotta love it when LNs cite the HSCA but ignore their conclusion that the WC/FBI investigation was seriously flawed and then attack the HSCA over their findings of a 4th shot from the Grassy Knoll.
Personally I'd find it real interesting to have a real recording from the time of the shots but the dictabelt acoustic evidence was completely flawed and our very own member of this Forum, Steve Barber was an integral part of their findings, the motorbikes were in the wrong place, the motobikes sounds were wrong, the sirens didn't correspond, the timing was off, no crowd sounds etc etc etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording
Trying to score a quick point but when it comes down to it running away from any serious opposition.
The primary reason we are here is to establish who shot JFK, and the HSCA's number One Conclusion was "1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President."
Oops, did I just describe a troll?.... Yeah it seems I did.
Again with the unwarranted hostility? Take a deep breath and never forget the HSCA's number One Conclusion was "1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President."
Thank you for your time.
JohnM
-
The WC timeline of Oswalds actions is a simple to understand timeline that works as long as one is willing to ignore/dismiss key witnesses like Dorothy Garner, and Carolyn Arnold, Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, and about 2/3rds of the ear witnesses who heard the last 2 shots fired too close together to be plausibly coming from an old MC bolt action rifle.
Some witnesses like Harold Norman, who spaced the 3 shots spread in about 4 secs of time (approx) per recorded interviews as well as his testimony at a mock trial (Bugliosi v Spence) , are accepted partly , but dismissed otherwise whenever they state something that upsets the basic simple theory that Oswald was the lone assassin.
Other witnesses like Bob Jackson, and Malcolm Couch whom both saw a rifle being “slowly withdrawn” from the 6th floor SE window of TSBD, seem to have been left out of the timeline equation probably because the additional time added to the escape from the 6th floor to 2nd floor lunchroom makes it virtually impossible for Oswald to ever have descended to the 2nd floor landing by 75 secs or even 85 secs post shots.
Then there are the witnesses statement related to the Tippet scene such as Markam, Bowley , and Benevides, as well as the 1:15 pm DOA document from the emergency room doctor , which establishes a timeline of Tippet being shot approx 1:07 pm.
Then the timeline conflict of the bus transfer ticket being issued not earlier than 15 minutes prior to the expiration time of 1:00pm (= issued at 12:45) would make it impossible for Oswald to be entering Walleys taxi between 12:30-12:45 (per Walleys manifest.)So the bus driver McWatters, the dutiful employee who made it evident from his WC testimony how he followed the company rules,just conveniently in this one particular way, violates the ticket rules and issues tickets well… maybe just a little earlier than 12:45…
So the mountain of evidence is really just a mountain of “fuzzy facts” that can be listed in a way which makes it appear to be a logical argument, but really is just a phantom construction that omits all other facts and statements which contradict the theory.
Hi Zeon, it's a pleasant change to deal with a calm and well meaning critic.
As for Harold Norman, he heard the bolt action of the rifle and 3 shells hit the floor, all of which match the evidence found on the floor above and as for the timing he says that the shots were evenly spaced, I can't find any interview where Norman indicates the timing between the first and last shots? He describes the Boom click click Boom click click Boom click click but is just describing the sounds and the last click click is verified by the still chambered bullet.
Btw have a great day!
JohnM
-
Why shoot the messenger and why so angry?
Let's start with the HSCA's Number One finding that "1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President." and don't you forget it!
"probably killed as a result of conspiracy"
"probably" doesn't sound that they were so sure of any conspiracy!
And always remember that 15 years later they couldn't find from any evidence available to them that the Soviets, Cuban Government, anti Castro Cuban groups, national syndicate of organized crime were involved and concluded that "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy"!
But they do concede "that does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved." Wow Thats some rock solid evidence of Conspiracy? LOL
But go ahead and rely on "probably" and "may have been" and completely ignore the HSCA's Number One Conclusion "1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President."
Personally I'd find it real interesting to have a real recording from the time of the shots but the dictabelt acoustic evidence was completely flawed and our very own member of this Forum, Steve Barber was an integral part of their findings, the motorbikes were in the wrong place, the motobikes sounds were wrong, the sirens didn't correspond, the timing was off, no crowd sounds etc etc etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording
The primary reason we are here is to establish who shot JFK, and the HSCA's number One Conclusion was "1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President."
Again with the unwarranted hostility? Take a deep breath and never forget the HSCA's number One Conclusion was "1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President."
Thank you for your time.
JohnM
So many words and nothing of any interest or significance. You really like wasting your time with this BS, don't you?
The HSCA: "(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight"
Deal with it.
-
So many words and nothing of any interest or significance. You really like wasting your time with this BS, don't you?
The HSCA: "(1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight"
Deal with it.
Sorry Martin but the HSCA did "deal with it" and let's look at their conclusion.
"The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy"
"probably" doesn't sound like they were so sure of any conspiracy, does it! LOLOLOL
And always remember that 15 years later the HSCA couldn't find from any evidence available to them that the Soviets, Cuban Government, anti Castro Cuban groups, national syndicate of organized crime were involved and concluded that "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy"!
But they do concede "that does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."
Wow thats some rock solid evidence of Conspiracy? LOL
But go ahead and rely on "probably" and "may have been" and completely ignore the HSCA's Number One Conclusion
"1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President."
;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin but the HSCA did "deal with it" and let's look at their conclusion.
"The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy"
"probably" doesn't sound like they were so sure of any conspiracy, does it! LOLOLOL
And always remember that 15 years later the HSCA couldn't find from any evidence available to them that the Soviets, Cuban Government, anti Castro Cuban groups, national syndicate of organized crime were involved and concluded that "The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy"!
But they do concede "that does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."
Wow thats some rock solid evidence of Conspiracy? LOL
But go ahead and rely on "probably" and "may have been" and completely ignore the HSCA's Number One Conclusion
"1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President."
;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
:D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D
JohnM
The self-appointed "seeker of truth" cherry picks the evidence he likes..... Go figure!
-
The self-appointed "seeker of truth" cherry picks the evidence he likes..... Go figure!
Sorry Martin, but the HSCA went all out to rectify any past perceived mistakes and could only come up with a probable conspiracy that may have involved individual members. Hardy haha!
But keep isolating the HSCA words that you think prove something but at the end of the day, the HSCA couldn't find anything. LOL
And the Conspiracy community is still searching with many times the manpower and there is still nothing.
Good luck, because you're gonna need it!!!
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin, but the HSCA went all out to rectify any past perceived mistakes and could only come up with a probable conspiracy that may have involved individual members. Hardy haha!
But keep isolating the HSCA words that you think prove something but at the end of the day, the HSCA couldn't find anything. LOL
And the Conspiracy community is still searching with many times the manpower and there is still nothing.
Good luck, because you're gonna need it!!!
JohnM
Why would I need "good luck"? You are not making any sense.
-
"probably" doesn't sound like they were so sure of any conspiracy, does it! LOLOLOL
How "sure" somebody is about a conclusion has no bearing on whether it's true or not.
-
As I just explained in another thread, the problem with WC theory advocates is an unwillingness to adjust their theory and perhaps simply admit that the time line does not work and perhaps witnesses were simply mistaken.
So with McWatters, the whole bus trip thing is a joke especially when Bledsoe is added to it claiming she saw Oswald on the bus and saw the hole in the elbow of his brown shirt… which is IMPOSSIBLE because Oswald had not yet changed to that shirt.
So just dismiss that whole part of the WC timeline as a mistaken witness account that has been proved to be improbable because of Bledsoe, and rely solely on Walley the taxi driver manifest which allows Oswald entering The taxi as early as 12:40.
There follows then the possibility of Walley able to drive faster ( being a cab driver) and in 7 minutes drop Oswald off 5 blocks away from his boarding house at 12:47
Then Oswald could double time jog 5 blocks in 2.5 minutes , thus entering his boarding house by 12:50.
Oswald then exits the house by 12:54 and has the time to “walk briskly” and arrive at 10th and Patton 12 minutes later at 1:06, and then shooting Tippet at 1:07.
This in turn preserves the Markam, Bowley, Benevides time estimates as well as the emergency room doctor 1:15 DOA time.
-
Talk about desperation.
Rose wasn't waiting for him. If anything it was the other way around.
Nobody said that Rose was waiting for him. Rose himself told the WC he was brought in a few minutes after he [Rose] got there.
Mr. ROSE. There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?
Stoval doesn't even contradict him;
While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.
There was plenty of opportunity for a wallet to get from Bentley to Rose via at least one intermediary, so this latest line of argument goes nowhere.
Nope. According to Stovall, he and Rose were talking to somebody who saw and knew nothing. They did not take an affidavit from that person. They had no need to spend much time with that person after Oswald was brought in. You are desperately trying to make it sound as if both men would still spend minutes with a persom who saw and knew nothing before turning to Oswald. That simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
However, Bentley said in his report that he was first in the Homicide bureau and then gave the "identification" to Baker when he went to Captain Westbrook's office. That clearly implies he did not give, whatever it was he gave him, straight away.
What an hilarious selfserving argument to make . Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.
You really need better quality arguments than this. You are the one making all the assumptions. I'm actually going by what the men themselves said. Care to try again?
Nobody said that Rose was waiting for him
You're kidding, right?! that's exactly what you said in reply #303! Right here: "Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him"
Stoval doesn't even contradict him (Rose)
I didn't say that Stovall contradicted Rose. In fact, I said that Stovall's version supported Rose in that Oswald had already been moved to the interrogation room and was sitting down when they got to him. Stovall said that Oswald was brought in and put into an interrogation room while he and Rose were interviewing another witness, and that they did not proceed to Oswald's interrogation room until after they had finished with the witness:
STOVALL: We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.
I doubt that they spent a greet deal of time interviewing the witness, but it still takes some time to get from "what is your name" to deciding that the witness isn't saying isn't going to be of much value. Enough time that they had to continue talking to him for a bit after Oswald was frog-marched in and dumped into an interrogation room chair. And that's enough time for a wallet to be handed off, which takes all of two seconds. No amount of pretense on your part changes that.
Bentley said in his report that he was first in the Homicide bureau and then gave the "identification" to Baker when he went to Captain Westbrook's office.
You keep misrepresenting what Bentley said. He wrote, "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest."
"Then," not "when." Bentley's use of "then" undermines and contradicts your opinion. He handed the ID over and only then went to Westbrook's office.
'
Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.
Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.
-
As I just explained in another thread, the problem with WC theory advocates is an unwillingness to adjust their theory and perhaps simply admit that the time line does not work and perhaps witnesses were simply mistaken.
So with McWatters, the whole bus trip thing is a joke especially when Bledsoe is added to it claiming she saw Oswald on the bus and saw the hole in the elbow of his brown shirt… which is IMPOSSIBLE because Oswald had not yet changed to that shirt.
So just dismiss that whole part of the WC timeline as a mistaken witness account that has been proved to be improbable because of Bledsoe, and rely solely on Walley the taxi driver manifest which allows Oswald entering The taxi as early as 12:40.
There follows then the possibility of Walley able to drive faster ( being a cab driver) and in 7 minutes drop Oswald off 5 blocks away from his boarding house at 12:47
Then Oswald could double time jog 5 blocks in 2.5 minutes , thus entering his boarding house by 12:50.
Oswald then exits the house by 12:54 and has the time to “walk briskly” and arrive at 10th and Patton 12 minutes later at 1:06, and then shooting Tippet at 1:07.
This in turn preserves the Markam, Bowley, Benevides time estimates as well as the emergency room doctor 1:15 DOA time.
As I just explained in another thread, the problem with WC theory advocates is an unwillingness to adjust their theory and perhaps simply admit that the time line does not work and perhaps witnesses were simply mistaken.
The reason for this is a simple one; they don't have enough confidence in their own narrative. For them, the risk of conceding even the smallest point is just too great as it might lead to the total unraveling of their fairytale story.
-
Nobody said that Rose was waiting for him
You're kidding, right?! that's exactly what you said in reply #303! Right here: "Oswald is brought into the Homicide bureau, where Gus Rose is already waiting for him"
Stoval doesn't even contradict him (Rose)
I didn't say that Stovall contradicted Rose. In fact, I said that Stovall's version supported Rose in that Oswald had already been moved to the interrogation room and was sitting down when they got to him. Stovall said that Oswald was brought in and put into an interrogation room while he and Rose were interviewing another witness, and that they did not proceed to Oswald's interrogation room until after they had finished with the witness:
STOVALL: We were talking to a witness that had seen all the people standing out there--he didn't actually see anything, so we didn't even take an affidavit from him because he didn't see anything. While talking to him, the officers brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the Homicide Bureau and put him into an interrogation room we have there at the bureau. After we finished talking to this witness, we went back there and talked to him briefly.
I doubt that they spent a greet deal of time interviewing the witness, but it still takes some time to get from "what is your name" to deciding that the witness isn't saying isn't going to be of much value. Enough time that they had to continue talking to him for a bit after Oswald was frog-marched in and dumped into an interrogation room chair. And that's enough time for a wallet to be handed off, which takes all of two seconds. No amount of pretense on your part changes that.
Bentley said in his report that he was first in the Homicide bureau and then gave the "identification" to Baker when he went to Captain Westbrook's office.
You keep misrepresenting what Bentley said. He wrote, "I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's Office to make a report of the arrest."
"Then," not "when." Bentley's use of "then" undermines and contradicts your opinion. He handed the ID over and only then went to Westbrook's office.
'
Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.
Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.
Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.
I never said that he got the wallet from a patrolman. You are the one misrepresenting what I said. This is what Rose told the WC.
"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."
Rose wasn't sure who had the wallet but he figured it could be the patrolman who brought him [Oswald] in. Your claim was however that Rose could have gotten the wallet from Baker, a man he worked with and knew. If that were the case, he wouldn't have brought up the patrolman as a possibility, because Rose wouldn't have confused Baker for a patrolman.
The fact that you clearly misunderstood my comment doesn't mean I am misrepresenting anything. Get it now? Thumb1:
-
Rose didn't claim that he got the wallet from a patrolman. Once again you either misread or misrepresented what someone said. That's such a habit with you.
I never said that he got the wallet from a patrolman. You are the one misrepresenting what I said. This is what Rose told the WC.
"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."
Rose wasn't sure who had the wallet but he figured it could be the patrolman who brought him [Oswald] in. Your claim was however that Rose could have gotten the wallet from Baker, a man he worked with and knew. If that were the case, he wouldn't have brought up the patrolman as a possibility, because Rose wouldn't have confused Baker for a patrolman.
The fact that you clearly misunderstood my comment doesn't mean I am misrepresenting anything. Get it now? Thumb1:
I wrote this:
You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part. It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory
and you responded with this:
Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.
Your statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you believed that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.
-
I wrote this:
You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part. It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory
and you responded with this:
Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.
Your statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you believed that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.
Well Mitch, at least Martin isn't confusing "information" with "identification" anymore and I say that's progress.
JohnM
-
I wrote this:
You assume that the handover of the wallet would have been so consequential that Rose could not have forgotten who the source was. But that's just another presumption on your part. It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory
and you responded with this:
Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman.
Your statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you believed that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.
It is not my problem that you don't understand what I have said.
-
Well Mitch, at least Martin isn't confusing "information" with "identification" anymore and I say that's progress.
JohnM
The troll is still here.... :D :D :D :D :D
His obsession with me is beginning to get troublesome.
-
The troll is still here.... :D :D :D :D :D
His obsession with me is beginning to get troublesome.
The troll is still here.... :D :D :D :D :D
Yep, and I'm not going anywhere!
His obsession with me is beginning to get troublesome.
I was being positive about the progress you are making, why is that a problem?
And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone, but do carry on.
Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??
JohnM
-
Yep, and I'm not going anywhere!
I was being positive about the progress you are making, why is that a problem?
And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone, but do carry on.
Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??
JohnM
And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone
The obsession on full display; counting the number of my posts and ignoring there must have been at least the same amount of posts from you. As most of those contain some sort of provocation, it's hardly surprising that I reply to them to point out your lies, misrepresentations and stupidity.
Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??
No, I meant troublesome. You've been tiresome for a long time now.
-
And it's worth noting to put this interaction into perspective, that you have been compelled to respond to Forty Six(46) of my posts in the last week alone
The obsession on full display; counting the number of my posts and ignoring there must have been at least the same amount of posts from you.
Btw did you mean "troublesome" or "tiresome" because surely, my innocent observations shouldn't be causing you any trouble??
No, I meant troublesome. You've been tiresome for a long time now.
The obsession on full display; counting the number of my posts and ignoring there must have been at least the same amount of posts from you.
Huh? that doesn't even make sense and is illogical, we have never been talking about the number of posts made in the last week but the amount of direct replies to my posts, and it's on record that you have made many more posts(about ten), replying to me than I have made in replying to you, thus if anything you are more obsessed with me than I am with you, and that's a fact Jack! LMFAO!
But do try again.
No, I meant troublesome.
I humbly apologise that my posts pointing out the flaws in your arguments are causing you trouble.
EDIT, I notice you modified your post to add a string of insults, again proving my point, "Ooh, you are awful, but I like you"
JohnM
-
Huh? that doesn't even make sense and is illogical, we have never been talking about the number of posts made in the last week but the amount of direct replies to my posts, and it's on record that you have made many more posts(about ten), replying to me than I have made in replying to you, thus if anything you are more obsessed with me than I am with you, and that's a fact Jack! LMFAO!
But do try again.
I humbly apologise that my posts pointing out the flaws in your arguments are causing you trouble.
EDIT, I notice you modified your post to add a string of insults, again proving my point, "Ooh, you are awful, but I like you"
JohnM
When you have anything of significance or interest to say let me know.
-
It is not my problem that you don't understand what I have said.
I understand what "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman" means. Especially in the context of what you were trying to argue. Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.
-
I understand what "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman" means. Especially in the context of what you were trying to argue. Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.
If you need to make up what I "thought" you've already lost my interest.
-
When you have anything of significance or interest to say let me know.
In all seriousness the entire Forum is waiting with baited breath to find out what the National Archives said about why the Hidell ID was missing from the photograph of Oswald's wallet contents, you said you asked, what did they say?
The best idea is why don't you get up off your butt and ask the National archives yourself
Already did.
Btw I don't want to ask again for the fourth time, but I will keep asking till you give a reply and if you were just foolin' about, then that's fine, just answer the question. What did they say, I'm genuinely curious.
And if you speak to the National Archives again ask about Iacoletti's and your claim about the "missing" microfilm, thanks in advance.
JohnM
-
If you need to make up what I "thought" you've already lost my interest.
I quoted you exactly. "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman." Given the discussion, this makes no sense whatsoever unless you were trying to argue that Rose was given the wallet by a patrolman. No matter what attempted context you want to try to wrap around it. Nothing is "made up," at least on my part.
-
I quoted you exactly. "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman." Given the discussion, this makes no sense whatsoever unless you were trying to argue that Rose was given the wallet by a patrolman. No matter what attempted context you want to try to wrap around it. Nothing is "made up," at least on my part.
You just don't know when to stop....
Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.
I don't care what makes sense to your or not. I never said, and you thus made up that I thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.
When you don't understand something so basic, there's nothing more I can tell you.
-
You stupid fool. I said I asked the National Archives. Where did I say I already got an answer from them?
Like you, I'm a member of this Forum.
So being a member of this forum goes with the right to tell others what to do? That's good to know. I'll keep that in mind.
You stupid fool
Don't be so negative.
I said I asked the National Archives.
Yes you did say that.
Where did I say I already got an answer from them?
See Martin, that wasn't hard. But the person who answered the phone/email must have said something? Were they going to get back to you?
So being a member of this forum goes with the right to tell others what to do?
No, of course not but you did make the claim and it's only fair that you support your claim.
That's good to know. I'll keep that in mind.
Sure, if I make a claim, you can ask for me to support my claim, that won't be a problem.
Btw, if you speak to them again, it would be nice to clear up the "missing" microfilm claim that both John and yourself have made.
JohnM
-
Don't be so negative.
Yes you did say that.
See Martin, that wasn't hard. But the person who answered the phone/email must have said something? Were they going to get back to you?
No, of course not but you did make the claim and it's only fair that you support your claim.
Sure, if I make a claim, you can ask for me to support my claim, that won't be a problem.
Btw, if you speak to them again, it would be nice to clear up the "missing" microfilm claim that both John and yourself have made.
JohnM
Thank you for showing us all why you are such an enormous waste of time and space.
But the person who answered the phone/email must have said something?
Must they?
you did make the claim and it's only fair that you support your claim.
I merely said that I had already contacted them. You turned that in "a claim" and jumped to the wrong conclusion that I must have had a reply yet. It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself.
Sure, if I make a claim, you can ask for me to support my claim, that won't be a problem.
Of course that will be a problem as you constantly make claims you can't/won't support.
Btw, if you speak to them again, it would be nice to clear up the "missing" microfilm claim that both John and yourself have made.
There you go again, telling me what to do.... If you want to find out, do it yourself.
-
Thank you for showing us all why you are such an enormous waste of time and space.
But the person who answered the phone/email must have said something?
Must they?
you did make the claim and it's only fair that you support your claim.
I merely said that I had already contacted them. You turned that in "a claim" and jumped to the wrong conclusion that I must have had a reply yet.
Sure, if I make a claim, you can ask for me to support my claim, that won't be a problem.
Of course that will be a problem as you constantly make claims you can't/won't support.
Btw, if you speak to them again, it would be nice to clear up the "missing" microfilm claim that both John and yourself have made.
There you go again, telling me what to do.... If you want to find out, do it yourself.
Must they?
I merely said that I had already contacted them. You turned that in "a claim" and jumped to the wrong conclusion that I must have had a reply yet.
Didn't you just say earlier "You'll find out soon enough.", so how can you claim that I'm going to "find out soon enough" if you had no reply?
There you go again, telling me what to do.... If you want to find out, do it yourself.
If I was saying the microfilm was "missing" then I most certainly would, but I didn't make that claim, you did!
JohnM
-
Didn't you just say earlier "You'll find out soon enough.", so how can you claim that I'm going to "find out soon enough" if you had no reply?
If I was saying the microfilm was "missing" then I most certainly would, but I didn't make that claim, you did!
JohnM
Didn't you just say earlier "You'll find out soon enough.", so how can you claim that I'm going to "find out soon enough" if you had no reply?
Because you will find out if and when I get a reply. Does everything need to be explained to you?
If I was saying the microfilm was "missing" then I most certainly would, but I didn't make that claim, you did!
So, what exactly would I have to ask the National Archives? There's nothing to clear up.
If you want something to be cleared up, that's your problem not mine.
-
Didn't you just say earlier "You'll find out soon enough.", so how can you claim that I'm going to "find out soon enough" if you had no reply?
Because you will find out if and when I get a reply. Does everything need to be explained to you?
If I was saying the microfilm was "missing" then I most certainly would, but I didn't make that claim, you did!
So, what exactly would I have to ask the National Archives? There's nothing to clear up.
Because you will find out if and when I get a reply.
But Martin, if you receive no reply, how on Earth can you claim that I will "find out soon enough"?
JohnM
-
But Martin, if you receive no reply, how on Earth can you claim that I will "find out soon enough"?
JohnM
Go waste somebody else's time.
-
Go waste somebody else's time.
C'mon Martin, just a couple of posts ago you added "It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself." but that kinda backfired, didn't it?
You could have just been honest from the very first time I asked you about contacting the National Archive, because even if it wasn't true you could of just said "I contacted them and I haven't received a reply" but instead you wanted to prolong this, insult me and fight me which gave me plenty of ammunition which led to your humiliation, but it needn't have ended this way.
Anyway thanks for playing. Thumb1:
JohnM
-
C'mon Martin, just a couple of posts ago you added "It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself." but that kinda backfired, didn't it?
You could have just been honest from the very first time I asked you about contacting the National Archive, because even if it wasn't true you could of just said "I contacted them and I haven't received a reply" but instead you wanted to prolong this, insult me and fight me which gave me plenty of ammunition which led to your humiliation, but it needn't have ended this way.
Anyway thanks for playing. Thumb1:
JohnM
you added "It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself." but that kinda backfired, didn't it?
No it didn't backfire at all. You just want to spin it that way. Having fun watching you being an idiot has it's limitations. Besides I have far more interesting things to do.
You could have just been honest from the very first time I asked you about contacting the National Archive,
You said I should contact the National Archive and I replied that I already did. There's nothing dishonest about that.
because even if it wasn't true you could of just said "I contacted them and I haven't received a reply"
Sure, but that would be dishonest, so it's no surprise that you think of something like that.
insult me and fight me
I was fighting you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
which gave me plenty of ammunition which led to your humiliation, but it needn't have ended this way.
Delusions of grandeur. Stop humiliating yourself. You were going from half page long replies to a simple and pathetic one liner, losing every argument along the way.
Did you contact the National Archives already to "clear up" whatever it was you wanted to clear up?
Don't bother to reply (but knowing you, you will nevertheless), because I won't respond anymore.
Play your silly games with somebody else.
-
you added "It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself." but that kinda backfired, didn't it?
No it didn't backfire at all. You just want to spin it that way. Having fun watching you being an idiot has it's limitations. Besides I have far more interesting things to do.
You could have just been honest from the very first time I asked you about contacting the National Archive,
You said I should contact the National Archive and I replied that I already did. There's nothing dishonest about that.
because even if it wasn't true you could of just said "I contacted them and I haven't received a reply"
Sure, but that would be dishonest, so it's no surprise that you think of something like that.
insult me and fight me
I was fighting you? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
which gave me plenty of ammunition which led to your humiliation, but it needn't have ended this way.
Delusions of grandeur. Stop humiliating yourself. You were going from half page long replies to a simple and pathetic one liner, losing every argument along the way.
Did you contact the National Archives already to "clear up" whatever it was you wanted to clear up?
Don't bother to reply (but knowing you, you will nevertheless), because I won't respond anymore.
Play your silly games with somebody else.
Go waste somebody else's time.
Besides I have far more interesting things to do.
....because I won't respond anymore.
Play your silly games with somebody else.
Good, so I'll finish this up.
This exercise has been a classic example for why Lawyers tell you to keep your mouth shut.
When starting from a position of dishonesty much like Oswald 60 years ago you can't rely on the truth for your framework, and you made the mistake of opening your mouth, then the avalanche of lies came crashing down.
JohnM
-
You just don't know when to stop....
I don't care what makes sense to your or not. I never said, and you thus made up that I thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.
When you don't understand something so basic, there's nothing more I can tell you.
I've quoted you exactly: "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman." And I will once again point out that this statement only makes sense if you're trying to argue that a patrolman gave Rose the wallet. That is what you said, whether you want to admit it or not.
-
I've quoted you exactly: "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman." And I will once again point out that this statement only makes sense if you're trying to argue that a patrolman gave Rose the wallet. That is what you said, whether you want to admit it or not.
Are you really so desperate to "win" every argument?
Even if it means bringing up the exact failed argument again and again? Wow!
That is what you said, whether you want to admit it or not.
I don't need you to tell me what I said and I don't have to admit anything just because you want me to. People can read back and find out for themselves.
As for your complete inability to comprehend what I actually said, there's nothing I can do for you.
-
Mitch and “Mytton” are poster children for how the LN-faithful mind operates.
- only their assumptions “make sense”.
- something is a “lie” if they don’t believe it.
-
Mitch and “Mytton” are poster children for how the LN-faithful mind operates.
- only their assumptions “make sense”.
- something is a “lie” if they don’t believe it.
- only their assumptions “make sense”.
No John, Mitch and I make reasonable inferences based on the evidence whereas you and the CT horde make broad assumptions based on your own biased claims and beliefs.
- something is a “lie” if they don’t believe it.
Says the man who casts dark aspersions towards any Law Enforcement Officer, Government Official, Forensic Expert or Honest Civilian, who even in the slightest way implicates your Demigod hero(Oswald) in the double murders that Oswald himself committed and you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison, Holy Heck Batman!
JohnM
-
Says the man who casts dark aspersions towards any Law Enforcement Officer, Government Official, Forensic Expert or Honest Civilian, who even in the slightest way implicates your Demigod hero(Oswald) in the double murders that Oswald himself committed and you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison, Holy Heck Batman!
(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
-
No John, Mitch and I make reasonable inferences based on the evidence whereas you and the CT horde make broad assumptions based on your own biased claims and beliefs.
Says the man who casts dark aspersions towards any Law Enforcement Officer, Government Official, Forensic Expert or Honest Civilian, who even in the slightest way implicates your Demigod hero(Oswald) in the double murders that Oswald himself committed and you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison, Holy Heck Batman!
JohnM
reasonable inferences
An inference is nothing more than an assumption. Calling it reasonable doesn't make it so.
It merely exposes a massive superiority complex.
-
reasonable inferences
An inference is nothing more than an assumption. Calling it reasonable doesn't make it so.
It merely exposes a massive superiority complex.
Inference vs Assumption
"The main difference between assumption and inference is that we make assumptions without any evidence or facts, while we make inference based on facts and evidence."
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-assumption-and-inference/
"Inference can always be logically deduced from the given information. Assumption can never be logically deduced from the given information – it carries something new.'"
https://collegedunia.com/exams/gmat/inference-vs-assumption
"An inference can always be logically deducted from the given information An assumption can never be logically deducted from the given information – It contains some new information"
https://e-gmat.com/blogs/inference-vs-assumption/
Inference vs Speculation
"What is often left unaddressed is the difference between drawing inferences from the evidence (which is permitted) and speculating based on the facts (which is not permitted)."
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/72055
"An inference is a logical deduction of fact. It is quite different from speculation, which lacks a logical foundation, and is no more than guesswork."
https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au
"There is a legal distinction between speculation and drawing inferences from the circumstantial and direct evidence on the record. The trier of fact is permitted to do the latter, but not the former."
https://www.alexi.com/matters/issues/the-law-of-speculation-and-drawing-inferences-from-the-circumstantial-evidence
JohnM
-
"What is often left unaddressed is the difference between drawing inferences from the evidence (which is permitted) and speculating based on the facts (which is not permitted)."
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/72055
"An inference is a logical deduction of fact. It is quite different from speculation, which lacks a logical foundation, and is no more than guesswork."
https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au
"There is a legal distinction between speculation and drawing inferences from the circumstantial and direct evidence on the record. The trier of fact is permitted to do the latter, but not the former."
https://www.alexi.com/matters/issues/the-law-of-speculation-and-drawing-inferences-from-the-circumstantial-evidence
JohnM
"What is often left unaddressed is the difference between drawing inferences from the evidence (which is permitted) and speculating based on the facts (which is not permitted)."
https://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/72055
Actual quote:
"In a number of recent cases the courts have said that regulators should base their conclusions on evidence rather than speculation. What is often left unaddressed is the difference between drawing inferences from the evidence (which is permitted) and speculating based on the facts (which is not permitted). "
Quoting the opinion of Australian solicitors Erica Richler and Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, who disagree with the court's opinion doesn't support your claim.
Once again you misrepresented the nature of the article.
I see you've added more links. I'm not going to go through them all, but this one I won't let pass by;
"The main difference between assumption and inference is that we make assumptions without any evidence or facts, while we make inference based on facts and evidence."
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-assumption-and-inference/
The website actually says;
"In logical reasoning, an assumption is an unstated link in the chain of evidence and conclusion. To find the assumption, you have to find the gap in an argument and filling it."
and
"An inference is a conclusion you draw depending on your observations. Making an inference means arriving at a conclusion after logically analyzing the available evidence and facts. "
So, now let's test this theory by applying it to a real case;
Oswald is seen carrying a large packet to work on Friday morning. Two witnesses see him carry that package. On of those says that he carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit, making the package too small to conceal a broken down rifle. When that same witness was shown a paper bag found at the TSBD he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. There is no evidence that Oswald made the bag found at the TSBD or that he took it with him to Irving on Thursday evening. There is also no conclusive evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was ever in Ruth Paine's garage.
Those are the facts, yet LNs, without a shred of evidence and with a total lack of facst, nevertheless claim Oswald carried the TSBD rifle in the bag and call it a "logical inference" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bottom line: one man's "logical inference" is another man's "assumption"
-
Actual quote:
"In a number of recent cases the courts have said that regulators should base their conclusions on evidence rather than speculation. What is often left unaddressed is the difference between drawing inferences from the evidence (which is permitted) and speculating based on the facts (which is not permitted). "
Quoting the opinion of Australian solicitors Erica Richler and Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, who disagree with the court's opinion doesn't support your claim.
Once again you misrepresented the nature of the article.
I see you've added more links. I'm not going to go through them all, but this one I won't let pass by;
The website actually says;
"In logical reasoning, an assumption is an unstated link in the chain of evidence and conclusion. To find the assumption, you have to find the gap in an argument and filling it."
and
"An inference is a conclusion you draw depending on your observations. Making an inference means arriving at a conclusion after logically analyzing the available evidence and facts. "
So, now let's test this theory by applying it to a real case;
Oswald is seen carrying a large packet to work on Friday morning. Two witnesses see him carry that package. On of those says that he carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit, making the package too small to conceal a broken down rifle. When that same witness was shown a paper bag found at the TSBD he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. There is no evidence that Oswald made the bag found at the TSBD or that he took it with him to Irving on Thursday evening. There is also no conclusive evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was ever in Ruth Paine's garage.
Those are the facts, yet LNs, without a shred of evidence and with a total lack of facst, nevertheless claim Oswald carried the TSBD rifle in the bag and call it a "logical inference" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Martin, all the words in the World won't help you, so I'll make this simple.
You said "An inference is nothing more than an assumption." and you were wrong.
JohnM
-
Martin, all the words in the World won't help you, so I'll make this simple.
You said "An inference is nothing more than an assumption." and you were wrong.
JohnM
Sure Johnny.... whatever you say, Johnny.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(https://media.tenor.com/_tMajnpCw90AAAAd/reefer-madness-movie-classic-controversial-movie.gif)
JohnM
-
(https://media.tenor.com/_tMajnpCw90AAAAd/reefer-madness-movie-classic-controversial-movie.gif)
JohnM
Congratulations on making your most significant and interesting post so far this year. Well done Thumb1:
-
No John, Mitch and I make reasonable inferences based on the evidence whereas you and the CT horde make broad assumptions based on your own biased claims and beliefs.
Everybody thinks his own speculation is “reasonable”. That doesn’t make it true, or proven.
Says the man who casts dark aspersions towards any Law Enforcement Officer, Government Official, Forensic Expert or Honest Civilian, who even in the slightest way implicates your Demigod hero(Oswald) in the double murders that Oswald himself committed and you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison, Holy Heck Batman!
Holy Strawman, Batman!
-
Martin, all the words in the World won't help you, so I'll make this simple.
You said "An inference is nothing more than an assumption." and you were wrong.
What you call “logical inferences” are nothing more than assumptions. That’s why they all get LOLed.
-
What you call “logical inferences” are nothing more than assumptions. That’s why they all get LOLed.
I gave Mytton an opportunity to apply and explain his so-called "logical inference" to the matter of the paper bag Oswald carried to work and he ran as fast as he could.
-
Are you really so desperate to "win" every argument?
Even if it means bringing up the exact failed argument again and again? Wow!
That is what you said, whether you want to admit it or not.
I don't need you to tell me what I said and I don't have to admit anything just because you want me to. People can read back and find out for themselves.
As for your complete inability to comprehend what I actually said, there's nothing I can do for you.
I keep quoting what you actually said. Apparently, there's a bizarre disconnect in your head between what you say you "actually said" and what you actually said. In fact, at no point have you directly addressed what you actually said, preferring to talk around it. If there is nothing you can do for me, it's because you're the one who needs help.
-
I keep quoting what you actually said. Apparently, there's a bizarre disconnect in your head between what you say you "actually said" and what you actually said. In fact, at no point have you directly addressed what you actually said, preferring to talk around it. If there is nothing you can do for me, it's because you're the one who needs help.
I keep quoting what you actually said.
Yes, and what I didn't say is that I believe the patrolman gave the wallet to Rose.
You are the one who jumps to a flawed conclusion about something I "tried to argue" but did not argue at all.
The point I was actually making was/is that if your repeated suggestion is true, that Baker gave Rose the wallet, the latter would not have mentioned the patrolman at all as a potential source of the wallet, because "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman."
I can't help it if you don't understand basic English.
-
Strawman
Thought terminating cliché.
JohnM
-
Thought terminating cliché.
JohnM
And very true
-
Thought terminating cliché.
It’s what you always end up doing to desperately try to prop up a failing argument — make something up as the “alternative”, and pretend that’s what’s being argued.
I never make the ridiculous claim that anybody “lied in unison”. And you still can’t prove that it was “Oswald’s rifle”.
-
It’s what you always end up doing to desperately try to prop up a failing argument — make something up as the “alternative”, and pretend that’s what’s being argued.
I never make the ridiculous claim that anybody “lied in unison”. And you still can’t prove that it was “Oswald’s rifle”.
It’s what you always end up doing...
Fallacy of Exaggeration
desperately try to prop up a failing argument
Ad hominen Fallacy
I never make the ridiculous claim that anybody “lied in unison”.
Quoting Out of Context Fallacy
And you still can’t prove that it was “Oswald’s rifle”.
Red Herring Argument
JohnM
-
Fallacy of Exaggeration
No, that’s your ignorance about what fallacy of exaggeration means.
Ad hominen Fallacy
No, attacking your argument is not attacking you.
Quoting Out of Context Fallacy
Not out of context at all. Exact quote:
“you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison”
Red Herring Argument
Not at all. Again, an exact quote:
“The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins”.
Nice try though.
-
I keep quoting what you actually said.
Yes, and what I didn't say is that I believe the patrolman gave the wallet to Rose.
You are the one who jumps to a flawed conclusion about something I "tried to argue" but did not argue at all.
The point I was actually making was/is that if your repeated suggestion is true, that Baker gave Rose the wallet, the latter would not have mentioned the patrolman at all as a potential source of the wallet, because "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman."
I can't help it if you don't understand basic English.
This is a little more detailed, but it has the same fundamental issue. You keep creating this dilemma between Baker and the Patrolmen,
then rule out Baker.
Which leaves the Patrolmen. :D
Do you not get that you keep doing that? :D :D :D
And you say I don't understand English :D :D :D :D :D
Other than that, your problem is that you continue to presume what Rose would have done and what was going through his mind. In reality, you have no idea what Rose would have been thinking or how he would have acted in the situation.
-
This is a little more detailed, but it has the same fundamental issue. You keep creating this dilemma between Baker and the Patrolmen,
then rule out Baker.
Which leaves the Patrolmen. :D
Do you not get that you keep doing that? :D :D :D
You still haven't figured out that it has nothing to do with the patrol man and everything to do with your suggestion that Baker gave the wallet to Rose?
And you say I don't understand English :D :D :D :D :D
Well, apparently you don't because you have been making the same mistake over and over again. You keep on insisting that if it wasn't Baker who gave the wallet to Rose, it must have been the patrol man. And you couldn't have been more wrong. I never claimed that the patrol man gave the wallet to Rose. I, in fact, accepted that Rose wasn't sure who gave him the wallet.
I merely stated that if Rose did get the wallet from Baker (who he knew very well), as you suggested, he would have had no need to even bring up any other possible source for the wallet, which of course includes the patrol man. At some point you argued (I'm paraphrasing) that Rose simply may have forgotten the event, because it was a mundane act that frequently happened. This, of course, makes no sense, because first of all it doesn't happen every day that you get to talk to a man accused of killing the President. But more importantly, you want us to believe that it is plausible that he simply had forgotten that Baker (who he knew well) gave him the wallet, yet at the same remembered the presence of an unknown police man. Really?
For all I know it was neither Baker or the patrol man who actually gave the wallet to Rose. But that - and you probably will not understand this - was never the subject of our discussion.
Other than that, your problem is that you continue to presume what Rose would have done and what was going through his mind. In reality, you have no idea what Rose would have been thinking or how he would have acted in the situation.
Sorry, I can't fix stupid.
Other than that, your problem is that you continue to presume what Rose would have done and what was going through his mind.
No. That was you;
It may be that the handover was such a mundane, routine, trivial act --repeated many times a week, week after week as suspects came and went-- that it faded into the background noise of Rose's memory
And not only that, but you also presumed to know what I was thinking;
Again, the statement makes no sense in the current discussion unless you thought that Rose said he received the wallet from a patrolman.
I'm done with this pointless argumentative BS. I'm sure you'll find somebody else to bore to death.
-
No, that’s your ignorance about what fallacy of exaggeration means.
No, attacking your argument is not attacking you.
Not out of context at all. Exact quote:
“you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison”
Not at all. Again, an exact quote:
“The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins”.
Nice try though.
No, that’s your ignorance about what fallacy of exaggeration means.
What I always do (or do not do) is an irrelevant addition to my "propping up a failing argument."
No, attacking your argument is not attacking you.
You attacked my state of mind(desperation) of why I made a particular argument, which I take great offence at!
Not out of context at all. Exact quote:
“you personally even go further and absurdly claim that due to "group think psyche" derived from some supernatural "grapevine" that Law Enforcement Officers and a Postal Inspector all lied in unison”
From my original post where this discussion initially surfaced, you argued against my evidence that, (the Hidell name was discussed with Oswald and at some point Oswald even admitted carrying the Hidell ID), with your opinion of "group think psyche" and "Law enforcement grapevine" therefore under these circumstances we only have two conclusions they were ALL telling the truth or they ALL lied in unison!
Not at all. Again, an exact quote:
“The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins”.
Show me where I said that quote in the post you responded to, otherwise it's a tacked on Red Herring.
Nice try though.
Thumb1:
JohnM
-
What I always do (or do not do) is an irrelevant addition to my "propping up a failing argument."
You attacked my state of mind(desperation) of why I made a particular argument, which I take great offence at!
Well now we can add hypocrisy to your long list of character flaws:
This sequence of inconceivable events I doubt would even be contemplated by a fiction author like Ian Fleming or Robert Ludlum, because of the absurd unbelievability, yet almost 60 years later the mind of an ever increasingly desperate conspiracy theorist who believes anything and I mean anything is possible, just take it all in their stride. -sigh-
From my original post where this discussion initially surfaced, you argued against my evidence that, (the Hidell name was discussed with Oswald and at some point Oswald even admitted carrying the Hidell ID), with your opinion of "group think psyche" and "Law enforcement grapevine" therefore under these circumstances we only have two conclusions they were ALL telling the truth or they ALL lied in unison!
You sure love your false dichotomies.
If months later somebody reports something he has a memory of hearing from somebody else, it’s not a “lie”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true either.
Show me where I said that quote in the post you responded to, otherwise it's a tacked on Red Herring.
Now that’s funny. The guy who whinges about evidence being examined in isolation wants one post in a long conversation to be responded to in isolation.
-
Well now we can add hypocrisy to your long list of character flaws:
You sure love your false dichotomies.
If months later somebody reports something he has a memory of hearing from somebody else, it’s not a “lie”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true either.
Now that’s funny. The guy who whinges about evidence being examined in isolation wants one post in a long conversation to be responded to in isolation.
...your long list of character flaws:
Yet another Ad-Hominin. Yawn!
You sure love your false dichotomies.
If months later somebody reports something he has a memory of hearing from somebody else, it’s not a “lie”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true either.
Moving the Goalposts.
Either the guys at the interrogation heard Oswald being questioned about the Hidell ID or they didn't.
Either the guys who heard Oswald admit carrying the Hidell Identification or they didn't.
Either the guys in the squad car heard Bentley mention a second identification or they didn't.
Now that’s funny. The guy who whinges about evidence being examined in isolation wants one post in a long conversation to be responded to in isolation.
Huh? The rifle wasn't being discussed! Because you had no answers, as a diversion, you added the rifle as a Red Herring. Whatever it takes seems to be a running theme with you.
JohnM
-
Yet another Ad-Hominin. Yawn!
Nope. I didn’t say your argument was wrong because you’re a hypocrite. I’m just pointing out that you’re a hypocrite.
Either the guys at the interrogation heard Oswald being questioned about the Hidell ID or they didn't.
Either the guys who heard Oswald admit carrying the Hidell Identification or they didn't.
Either the guys in the squad car heard Bentley mention a second identification or they didn't.
Well we finally agree on something.
But how does this show that it’s either true or they necessarily “lied in unison”? You don’t understand “moving the goalposts” either.
Huh? The rifle wasn't being discussed! Because you had no answers, as a diversion, you added the rifle as a Red Herring. Whatever it takes seems to be a running theme with you.
Of course it was being discussed. It’s right there in your quote. Don’t blame me if you can’t remember what you said.
“The sensible solution and Occam's razor conclusion is simply that Oswald invented the Hidell alias and ordered his rifle through legitimate channels which was processed and sent out by Kleins”.
This whole discussion about Oswald allegedly carrying a Hidell ID (that nobody bothered to mention in any interview or report made before the Klein’s order “turned up”) is irrelevant if you’re not trying to use it to connect Oswald with the rifle you want to believe is the murder weapon.
-
You still haven't figured out that it has nothing to do with the patrol man and everything to do with your suggestion that Baker gave the wallet to Rose?
If it has nothing to do with the patrolman, then why do you keep on bringing up the patrolman? I mean, like over and over and over again!
Well, apparently you don't because you have been making the same mistake over and over again. You keep on insisting that if it wasn't Baker who gave the wallet to Rose, it must have been the patrol man. And you couldn't have been more wrong. I never claimed that the patrol man gave the wallet to Rose. I, in fact, accepted that Rose wasn't sure who gave him the wallet.
No. That not what I'm saying, that's what you wrote. When you wrote, "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman," you created a dilemma between the two, then excluded Baker. Which (again) leaves the patrolman. You may not have intended for it to come out that way, but that's how it came out.
And, I agree that Rose didn't remember who gave him the wallet. That's part of the reason why I find your reasoning here so bizarre. If he doesn't remember who it was, then it doesn't matter if he brought up the patrolman. Or anyone else.
I merely stated that if Rose did get the wallet from Baker (who he knew very well), as you suggested, he would have had no need to even bring up any other possible source for the wallet, which of course includes the patrol man. At some point you argued (I'm paraphrasing) that Rose simply may have forgotten the event, because it was a mundane act that frequently happened. This, of course, makes no sense, because first of all it doesn't happen every day that you get to talk to a man accused of killing the President. But more importantly, you want us to believe that it is plausible that he simply had forgotten that Baker (who he knew well) gave him the wallet, yet at the same remembered the presence of an unknown police man. Really?
Once again, you presume to know what would have been going through Rose's head. But it's simply your own self-serving presumption. I will note that people tend to pay attention to, and remember, the novel while putting the routine and mundane out of mind. Not always, but that is the tendency.
BTW, I said that "Baker might well be your 'unidentified officer.'" That is, I raised the possibility that Baker was Rose's wallet-giver, but did not say that he was. That's a bit different than what you try to insinuate here.
For all I know it was neither Baker or the patrol man who actually gave the wallet to Rose. But that - and you probably will not understand this - was never the subject of our discussion.
I didn't say that it was any particular person. I did raise Baker as a possibility, since Bentley mentioned him. If you think the discussion has gone of track, that might be because you're unable to stay on point. Just sayin'.
Sorry, I can't fix stupid.
We know. we've tried to enlighten you for years now, but you mulishly adhere to the same old stupidities. But we've tried. Oh have we tried.
Other than that, your problem is that you continue to presume what Rose would have done and what was going through his mind.
No. That was you;
Uh, no. You are the person who claimed that Rose would have remembered Baker. I said that Rose might not have payed enough attention to the wallet handover to remember who gave it to him, and that your assumption that Rose would have automatically remembered Baker is just an assumption.
And not only that, but you also presumed to know what I was thinking;
I never presumed to know what you are thinking. But I know what you actually wrote.
I'm done with this pointless argumentative BS. I'm sure you'll find somebody else to bore to death.
It's no skin off my back. I can only stomach so much of you making a fool of yourself.
-
If it has nothing to do with the patrolman, then why do you keep on bringing up the patrolman? I mean, like over and over and over again!
No. That not what I'm saying, that's what you wrote. When you wrote, "Rose wouldn't confuse Baker (a man he worked with every day) for a patrolman," you created a dilemma between the two, then excluded Baker. Which (again) leaves the patrolman. You may not have intended for it to come out that way, but that's how it came out.
And, I agree that Rose didn't remember who gave him the wallet. That's part of the reason why I find your reasoning here so bizarre. If he doesn't remember who it was, then it doesn't matter if he brought up the patrolman. Or anyone else.
Once again, you presume to know what would have been going through Rose's head. But it's simply your own self-serving presumption. I will note that people tend to pay attention to, and remember, the novel while putting the routine and mundane out of mind. Not always, but that is the tendency.
BTW, I said that "Baker might well be your 'unidentified officer.'" That is, I raised the possibility that Baker was Rose's wallet-giver, but did not say that he was. That's a bit different than what you try to insinuate here.
I didn't say that it was any particular person. I did raise Baker as a possibility, since Bentley mentioned him. If you think the discussion has gone of track, that might be because you're unable to stay on point. Just sayin'.
We know. we've tried to enlighten you for years now, but you mulishly adhere to the same old stupidities. But we've tried. Oh have we tried.
Uh, no. You are the person who claimed that Rose would have remembered Baker. I said that Rose might not have payed enough attention to the wallet handover to remember who gave it to him, and that your assumption that Rose would have automatically remembered Baker is just an assumption.
I never presumed to know what you are thinking. But I know what you actually wrote.
It's no skin off my back. I can only stomach so much of you making a fool of yourself.
Your compulsion to keep an already dead conversation going is duly noted as is your desperate need to "win" an argument by arguing it to death with the same nonsense over and over again.
-
Your compulsion to keep an already dead conversation going is duly noted as is your desperate need to "win" an argument by arguing it to death with the same nonsense over and over again.
Your previous post contained a number of....inaccuracies that needed correcting. Anyway, I thought you were "done with this" thread, so why respond?
-
Your previous post contained a number of....inaccuracies that needed correcting. Anyway, I thought you were "done with this" thread, so why respond?
I'm sure you know that Mr. Todd is one who of those people who will whip a dead horse and insist the the critter get up and pull the wagon.
-
I'm sure you know that Mr. Todd is one who of those people who will whip a dead horse and insist the the critter get up and pull the wagon.
Yes, Walt, I'm very much aware of that. But it seems to be common in the entire LN cult
-
Try this:
While holding a revolver in one hand:
Dump a selection of unfired and fired cartridges into your other hand
Sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff using only the other hand (remembering that hand#1 is preoccupied with holding a pistol)
Reload the unfired cartridges into the cylinder of the pistol
Dump the fired, empty cases
Do all of this while on the move, and without letting go of the pistol.
Dump a selection of unfired and fired cartridges into your other hand
AND DO THIS WITHOUT GETTING ANY GUNPOWDER RESIDUE ON YOUR HANDS
Lee had no gunpwdwer resdue on his hands...
-
Dump a selection of unfired and fired cartridges into your other hand
AND DO THIS WITHOUT GETTING ANY GUNPOWDER RESIDUE ON YOUR HANDS
Lee had no gunpwdwer resdue on his hands...
Uh, Walt... I'm not the guy claiming that dumped the cases out in his hand. That's what you said. The response of mine that you quoted is me pointing out that your contention is untenable.
-
Uh, Walt... I'm not the guy claiming that dumped the cases out in his hand. That's what you said. The response of mine that you quoted is me pointing out that your contention is untenable.
Actually I did NOT say that the killer dumped the shells in his hand. It's my contention that the killer removed the shells ONE-AT- A- TIME and therefore he was not using a Smith & Wesson. But I did point out that if he had dumped the shells into his (third ;D) hand then the palm of that hand would have been covered with burned powder residue. Lee Oswald had no gunpowder residue on his hand.
-
Actually I did NOT say that the killer dumped the shells in his hand. It's my contention that the killer removed the shells ONE-AT- A- TIME and therefore he was not using a Smith & Wesson. But I did point out that if he had dumped the shells into his (third ;D) hand then the palm of that hand would have been covered with burned powder residue. Lee Oswald had no gunpowder residue on his hand.
Let me quote you, lest you forgot:
Duh!!....When using a S&W revolver all cartridges ( both spent and unfired) are ejected at once. If the shooter has fired four shells he simply dumps all shells into his hand, and then he can place the two live rounds back in the cylinder and replace the four spent rounds that he has discarded four with live cartridges.
That's what I was responding to when I wrote:
Try this:
While holding a revolver in one hand:
Dump a selection of unfired and fired cartridges into your other hand
Sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff using only the other hand (remembering that hand#1 is preoccupied with holding a pistol)
Reload the unfired cartridges into the cylinder of the pistol
Dump the fired, empty cases
Do all of this while on the move, and without letting go of the pistol.
Again, I was pointing out that your contention was untenable given the circumstances. I never claimed that the Tippit gunman dumped out all the cases into one hand.
What I have said, and continue to maintain, is that the S&W ejector mechanism does not prevent someone from unloading the revolver one round at a time. S&W even provided instructions on how to do this on the box the Model 10s came in:
"To Remove a Single Shell: --After having swung the cylinder open, press on the ejector rod sufficiently to start the cartridges from the chambers. The fired shell can then be drawn out by hand."
You can see those instructions in this video exactly 3 minutes in:
I've also pointed out that there are other conditions that will require that the cases be removed by hand, such as when the rim of a case slips over the edge of the extractor star, or when a case has swollen stuck in the chamber.
-
Let me quote you, lest you forgot:
That's what I was responding to when I wrote:
Try this:
While holding a revolver in one hand:
Dump a selection of unfired and fired cartridges into your other hand
Sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff using only the other hand (remembering that hand#1 is preoccupied with holding a pistol)
Reload the unfired cartridges into the cylinder of the pistol
Dump the fired, empty cases
Do all of this while on the move, and without letting go of the pistol.
Again, I was pointing out that your contention was untenable given the circumstances. I never claimed that the Tippit gunman dumped out all the cases into one hand.
What I have said, and continue to maintain, is that the S&W ejector mechanism does not prevent someone from unloading the revolver one round at a time. S&W even provided instructions on how to do this on the box the Model 10s came in:
"To Remove a Single Shell: --After having swung the cylinder open, press on the ejector rod sufficiently to start the cartridges from the chambers. The fired shell can then be drawn out by hand."
You can see those instructions in this video exactly 3 minutes in:
I've also pointed out that there are other conditions that will require that the cases be removed by hand, such as when the rim of a case slips over the edge of the extractor star, or when a case has swollen stuck in the chamber.
Wonderful!! So is the above action the action that was described by the witnesses?? I don't believe it is....I believe they were describing the action of emptying the shells ONE AT A TIME and tossing the shells away as he walked away.
-
If the extractor thingy wasn’t working too well, something similar to the firing pin of this revolver being rusty, would the shells be difficult to shake out?
Presuming the shells probably are not so hot that they could be held all together in the palm of the hand without discomfort or burning the hand, and the Extractor wasn’t working and the shells were stuck and weren’t falling out , then the only thing left to do would be to remove each shell one at a time.
However, it still seems a bit odd to throw the shells on the ground while in view of the witnesses , when the shells could have been placed in the pocket temporarily until the shooter left the scene, thus not leaving incriminating evidence at the scene.
Could they determine the exact type of round just from the lead projectile fragments found in Tippet, without having found the shells?
-
If the extractor thingy wasn’t working too well, something similar to the firing pin of this revolver being rusty, would the shells be difficult to shake out?
Presuming the shells probably are not so hot that they could be held all together in the palm of the hand without discomfort or burning the hand, and the Extractor wasn’t working and the shells were stuck and weren’t falling out , then the only thing left to do would be to remove each shell one at a time.
However, it still seems a bit odd to throw the shells on the ground while in view of the witnesses , when the shells could have been placed in the pocket temporarily until the shooter left the scene, thus not leaving incriminating evidence at the scene.
Could they determine the exact type of round just from the lead projectile fragments found in Tippet, without having found the shells?
I believe all of your questions about the emptying the spent shells from "Oswald's " gun were answered by the FBI man who testified before LBJ's " Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee " ie "The Warren Commission".
That FBI man knew that "Oswald's gun" was NOT the murder weapon.
-
If the extractor thingy wasn’t working too well, something similar to the firing pin of this revolver being rusty, would the shells be difficult to shake out?
Presuming the shells probably are not so hot that they could be held all together in the palm of the hand without discomfort or burning the hand, and the Extractor wasn’t working and the shells were stuck and weren’t falling out , then the only thing left to do would be to remove each shell one at a time.
However, it still seems a bit odd to throw the shells on the ground while in view of the witnesses , when the shells could have been placed in the pocket temporarily until the shooter left the scene, thus not leaving incriminating evidence at the scene.
Could they determine the exact type of round just from the lead projectile fragments found in Tippet, without having found the shells?
Oswald was not planning on being caught. The shells are evidence only if they have his gun.
Oswald has a bit of a history of not really thinking about those kind of things. Just like giving up his US citizenship to move to Russia. Or burying his rifle at the scene of the Walker shooting - a simple canine search would have found it. Or leaving his rifle in the TSBD - maybe thinking that it could not possibly be traced to him since he used an alias Alec J. Hidell.....
-
Wonderful!! So is the above action the action that was described by the witnesses?? I don't believe it is....I believe they were describing the action of emptying the shells ONE AT A TIME and tossing the shells away as he walked away.
The point is that you can unload an S&W revolver one case at a time. In some circumstances, like a stuck case or a case whose rim has slipped over the ejector star, you have to.
-
If the extractor thingy wasn’t working too well, something similar to the firing pin of this revolver being rusty, would the shells be difficult to shake out?
Presuming the shells probably are not so hot that they could be held all together in the palm of the hand without discomfort or burning the hand, and the Extractor wasn’t working and the shells were stuck and weren’t falling out , then the only thing left to do would be to remove each shell one at a time.
However, it still seems a bit odd to throw the shells on the ground while in view of the witnesses , when the shells could have been placed in the pocket temporarily until the shooter left the scene, thus not leaving incriminating evidence at the scene.
Could they determine the exact type of round just from the lead projectile fragments found in Tippet, without having found the shells?
FWIR, they can usually identify the diameter of the bullet to within a few thousandths of an inch, if it's intact around its circumference. They might also be able to get the number of grooves, grove direction, and rifling rate. That can tell you a lot about what weapon fired the bullet, though it can't tell you what individual gun it was.
-
I believe all of your questions about the emptying the spent shells from "Oswald's " gun were answered by the FBI man who testified before LBJ's " Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee " ie "The Warren Commission".
That FBI man knew that "Oswald's gun" was NOT the murder weapon.
Having exhausted all other lines of argument to no avail, Walt develops clairvoyance and reads the minds of dead men.
-
As per the Education Forum : Jim Marr's comments on the James Files story: Has any of it been debunked ? and as told by Files , the killer of J.D. Tippit was a man who Files knew and was a good friend of , and that person was Gary Eugene Marlow " The Raven " . Files had never given out the name of Gary Eugene Marlow until Marlow passed away . David Atlee Phillips ( Maurice Bishop ) was the handler for Files and Marlow . Joe West was a lawyer who was working on getting JFK's body exhumed . Files used a Remington Fireball XP 100 and the round that he hit JFK in the temple with was a special round that contained mercury . The mercury round would have left traces of mercury in JFK's head and Files had told Joe West about the mercury in the one round he used on JFK . After Joe West had surgery a few weeks later which was a success , it was found that his medicine actually had been tampered with and West died and so did the possibility of exhuming JFK's body .
-
Having exhausted all other lines of argument to no avail, Walt develops clairvoyance and reads the minds of dead men.
Cunningham KNEW that anybody who dumped the shells from a S&W into his hand would be contaminated by the gunpowder residue......He also knew that Lee Oswald had NO gunpowder residue on his hand.....
-
Cunningham KNEW that anybody who dumped the shells from a S&W into his hand would be contaminated by the gunpowder residue......He also knew that Lee Oswald had NO gunpowder residue on his hand.....
(https://i.postimg.cc/mgSwxCwD/oswald-nitrate-report-b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BZwB4JHT/osw-ald-nitrate-left-hand.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yj5LrdQ/osw-ald-nitrate-right-hand.jpg)
JohnM
-
The shooter has to have looked very similar to Oswald given the number of witness willing to identify Oswald.
So either A. the shooter was Oswald or B. the shooter resembled Oswald enough to be mistaken as Oswald by several witnesses.
If A. What reasons to shoot Tippet?
LN reason: Oswald was crazy , having just shot JFK earlier.
CT reason: Oswald was paranoid and feared for his life after he realized he was probably being set up.
If B, What reasons to shoot Tippet?
LN reason: None because there’s no doubt the shooter was Oswald, therefore option B. Is a false choice.
CT reasons:
1. Since a shooter resembling Oswald so remarkably defies random probability therefore the shooting of Tippet was a planned event by an imposter to further set up Oswald as part of a larger conspiracy.
2. The imposters intent was exclusively a personal vendetta to frame Oswald and the conspiracy limited to only himself or just a few persons.
3. A combination of 1&2 , a larger conspiratorial group with the shooter having also a personal vendetta against Oswald.
-
The firing pin on Oswalds revolver was defective and would not have been able to fire . Automatic shells were also found at the Tippit crime scene . A wallet of Oswalds was found at the Tippit shooting scene . Oswalds hand gun was a revolver not an " Automatic " .
-
The firing pin on Oswalds revolver was defective and would not have been able to fire . Automatic shells were also found at the Tippit crime scene . A wallet of Oswalds was found at the Tippit shooting scene . Oswalds hand gun was a revolver not an " Automatic " .
The firing pin on Oswalds [sic] revolver was defective and would not have been able to fire .
Cite?
Btw the killer was seen by several eyewitnesses unloading his gun. The gun that Oswald was arrested with was an exclusive match to the shells found at the scene, which proves beyond all doubt that Oswald's weapon was good enough to produce the matching shells.
When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis affidavit 22/11/63
I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun
Mrs. Virginia Davis affidavit 22/11/63
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it.
Automatic shells were also found at the Tippit crime scene .
The eyewitnesses saw the Killer manually unload the gun and that's not the way an automatic gun works. And another fact worth noting is that the killer shot Tippit from a close range and the shells were found relatively far away and automatic guns don't send shells that far. Sorry bout that.
A wallet of Oswalds [sic] was found at the Tippit shooting scene .
Well Mike, that's good evidence proving Oswald was there.
Oswalds [sic] hand gun was a revolver not an " Automatic " .
Yep, you got that right. And the Killer who was positively ID'd as Lee Harvey Oswald was seen manually unloading his weapon with shells that were found at the scene and those very shells were an exclusive match to the revolver Oswald was arrested with and it was also the same weapon that Oswald was using when he tried to kill more arresting Officers at the Texas Theatre! Geez Louise it all fits, an open and shut case as they say in the classics!
JohnM
-
The shooter has to have looked very similar to Oswald given the number of witness willing to identify Oswald.
So either A. the shooter was Oswald or B. the shooter resembled Oswald enough to be mistaken as Oswald by several witnesses.
If A. What reasons to shoot Tippet?
LN reason: Oswald was crazy , having just shot JFK earlier.
CT reason: Oswald was paranoid and feared for his life after he realized he was probably being set up.
If B, What reasons to shoot Tippet?
LN reason: None because there’s no doubt the shooter was Oswald, therefore option B. Is a false choice.
CT reasons:
1. Since a shooter resembling Oswald so remarkably defies random probability therefore the shooting of Tippet was a planned event by an imposter to further set up Oswald as part of a larger conspiracy.
2. The imposters intent was exclusively a personal vendetta to frame Oswald and the conspiracy limited to only himself or just a few persons.
3. A combination of 1&2 , a larger conspiratorial group with the shooter having also a personal vendetta against Oswald.
Hi Zeon, the Officers name was "Tippit" not "Tippet".
JohnM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/mgSwxCwD/oswald-nitrate-report-b.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BZwB4JHT/osw-ald-nitrate-left-hand.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yj5LrdQ/osw-ald-nitrate-right-hand.jpg)
JohnM
MR Mytton.... Do you understand that there is a DIFFERENCE between SHOOTING a revolver and EXTRACTING THE SPENT SHELLS from a revolver? Firing the revolver would deposit reside from the burning gunpowder on the OUTSIDE of the hand holding the revolver ...... And EXTRACTING the spent shells into the palm of the hand would deposit burned gunpowder debris into the PALM of the hand.
Lee Oswald DID NOT have any burned gun powder on the PALM of his hand, therefore he did NOT empty any spent shells into his hand.
DO YOU UNDER STAND??
-
MR Mytton.... Do you understand that there is a DIFFERENCE between SHOOTING a revolver and EXTRACTING THE SPENT SHELLS from a revolver? Firing the revolver would deposit reside from the burning gunpowder on the OUTSIDE of the hand holding the revolver ...... And EXTRACTING the spent shells into the palm of the hand would deposit burned gunpowder debris into the PALM of the hand.
Lee Oswald DID NOT have any burned gun powder on the PALM of his hand, therefore he did NOT empty any spent shells into his hand.
DO YOU UNDER STAND??
Forget Mytton, Walt, he's a complete waste of time.
When they found no traces on Oswald's cheek (where it should have been if he fired a rifle) they argued that these tests are unreliable.
Oswald could have washed his hands and the test would show up positive. It's a complete waste of time, but it exposes just how disingenuous these LN freaks are.
-
Forget Mytton, Walt, he's a complete waste of time.
When they found no traces on Oswald's cheek (where it should have been if he fired a rifle) they argued that these tests are unreliable.
Oswald could have washed his hands and the test would show up positive. It's a complete waste of time, but it exposes just how disingenuous these LN freaks are.
how disingenuous these LN freaks are.
Is it possible for an intelligent and reasoning person to believe the crap they post?
-
how disingenuous these LN freaks are.
Is it possible for an intelligent and reasoning person to believe the crap they post?
No, but it's understandable considering their cult like indoctrinaction
-
Forget Mytton, Walt, he's a complete waste of time.
When they found no traces on Oswald's cheek (where it should have been if he fired a rifle) they argued that these tests are unreliable.
Oswald could have washed his hands and the test would show up positive. It's a complete waste of time, but it exposes just how disingenuous these LN freaks are.
Mr. BELIN. Had you ever done a paraffin test on a face before?
Mr. DAY. No; actually--had it not been for the particular type of case and this particular situation here we would not have at this time. It was just something that was done to actually keep from someone saying later on, "Why didn't you do it?" Actually, in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Well, the chamber, the nature of the chamber of the rifle, would that have anything to do with that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. In what way?
Mr. DAY. A rifle such as that one we are talking about here from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, in my opinion, would not throw nitrates back to where a man's face was when he is looking through a telescopic sight.
JohnM
-
MR Mytton.... Do you understand that there is a DIFFERENCE between SHOOTING a revolver and EXTRACTING THE SPENT SHELLS from a revolver? Firing the revolver would deposit reside from the burning gunpowder on the OUTSIDE of the hand holding the revolver ...... And EXTRACTING the spent shells into the palm of the hand would deposit burned gunpowder debris into the PALM of the hand.
Lee Oswald DID NOT have any burned gun powder on the PALM of his hand, therefore he did NOT empty any spent shells into his hand.
DO YOU UNDER STAND??
There's no need to SHOUT, I can read you perfectly well.
You said "Lee Oswald had NO gunpowder residue on his hand....." and you were wrong, in fact the detected nitrates on Oswald's hands according to the Dallas Police was typical of someone who had fired a gun.
And the rest of what you say, of what "would" of happened is of course your opinion and according to Iacoletti who accumulated quite a long list of your fabrications, your opinion is not to be trusted.
JohnM
-
Forget Mytton, Walt, he's a complete waste of time.
I still see that you are cowardly mentioning me in posts to other members, but since you were never a challenge and always ran away, that sort of gutless behaviour is to be expected.
JohnM
-
Oswald had his wallet on him when he was taken from the theater and I doubt that he would have two wallets on him and just happened to drop one at the scene of the Tippit murder . Captain Pinky Westbrook was seen handling a wallet at the Tippit scene . Like Oswald said " He was just a Patsy "
-
Btw the killer was seen by several eyewitnesses unloading his gun. The gun that Oswald was arrested with was an exclusive match to the shells found at the scene, which proves beyond all doubt that Oswald's weapon was good enough to produce the matching shells.
“gun that Oswald was arrested with”. LOL
“shells found at the scene”. LOL.
“proves beyond all doubt”. LOL.
“Oswald’s weapon”. LOL.
When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell.
Barbara Jeanette Davis affidavit 22/11/63
Mr. BALL. Did you see him throw anything away?
Mrs. DAVIS. No.
. . .
Representative FORD. You saw him take the shells out of the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; he was shaking them.
Representative FORD. He was shaking them?
Mrs. DAVIS. He was shaking them. I didn't see him actually use his hand to take them out. I mean he was sort of shaking them out.
Representative FORD. Did you find this one bullet at the point where you saw him shake the gun?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir; it was around the side of the house.
I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun
Mrs. Virginia Davis affidavit 22/11/63
Mr. BELIN. Did you see what he did with the shells when he emptied them into his left hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. After we, well, he was dropping them on the ground because we found two.
Mr. BELIN. You said that you found two? Did you see him drop them on the ground or not?
Mrs. DAVIS. No; we didn't see him.
Mr. BELIN. You just saw him emptying shells in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. You didn't actually see what he did with them when he got them in his hand, did you?
Mrs. DAVIS. No, sir.
The eyewitnesses saw the Killer manually unload the gun and that's not the way an automatic gun works. And another fact worth noting is that the killer shot Tippit from a close range and the shells were found relatively far away and automatic guns don't send shells that far. Sorry bout that.
And what makes you think the shells in evidence had anything to do with Tippit?
-
Mr. BELIN. Had you ever done a paraffin test on a face before?
Mr. DAY. No; actually--had it not been for the particular type of case and this particular situation here we would not have at this time. It was just something that was done to actually keep from someone saying later on, "Why didn't you do it?" Actually, in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Well, the chamber, the nature of the chamber of the rifle, would that have anything to do with that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. In what way?
Mr. DAY. A rifle such as that one we are talking about here from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, in my opinion, would not throw nitrates back to where a man's face was when he is looking through a telescopic sight.
"Today, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn called the FBI Laboratory and spoke to SA John F. Gallagher. He advised that since the assassination a large part of their efforts have been directed to the determination of powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. He advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts.” — Jevons to Conrad memo, 2/27/64
-
Not only no residue ( visibly) found on Oswald’s hands , but nothing on his jacket either , which he supposedly was wearing , none of the witness at the TIPPIT scene ( I spelled it right this time for Mytton:) , give any detail about the jacket sleeves being rolled up, then there theoretically would have been some trace of residue on the jacket?
-
"Today, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn called the FBI Laboratory and spoke to SA John F. Gallagher. He advised that since the assassination a large part of their efforts have been directed to the determination of powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. He advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts.” — Jevons to Conrad memo, 2/27/64
Testing with the actual weapon that Oswald owned and used!
(https://i.postimg.cc/SsCjnSmx/CE-139-Oswald-s-rifle.jpg)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
And again!
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct
JohnM
-
Not only no residue ( visibly) found on Oswald’s hands , but nothing on his jacket either , which he supposedly was wearing , none of the witness at the TIPPIT scene ( I spelled it right this time for Mytton:) , give any detail about the jacket sleeves being rolled up, then there theoretically would have been some trace of residue on the jacket?
( I spelled it right this time for Mytton:)
Not for me, but to show respect for a man killed in the line of duty.
JohnM
-
Yes , whatever other disagreements on the shooting of Tppit, this DPD officer was unjustly shot down without provocation, as his revolver was not in his hand , nor did any witness say they saw Tippit with gun in his hand pointing it at the man they think looked like Oswald.
Now, what about the probability of residue being VISIBLE on the hands of Oswald and absence of any residue on the jacket sleeve?
And what about the positive paraffin test results of Oswald’s hand vs the negative test on his cheek?
The negative result reasonably exonerates Oswald of having fired the MC rifle , while the positive result on his hands could just be from handling the revolver that he had in hand when DPD officer McDonald confronted Oswald in the Texas theater.
-
Yes , whatever other disagreements on the shooting of Tppit, this DPD officer was unjustly shot down without provocation, as his revolver was not in his hand , nor did any witness say they saw Tippit with gun in his hand pointing it at the man they think looked like Oswald.
Now, what about the probability of residue being VISIBLE on the hands of Oswald and absence of any residue on the jacket sleeve?
And what about the positive paraffin test results of Oswald’s hand vs the negative test on his cheek?
The negative result reasonably exonerates Oswald of having fired the MC rifle , while the positive result on his hands could just be from handling the revolver that he had in hand when DPD officer McDonald confronted Oswald in the Texas theater.
absence of any residue on the jacket sleeve?
Beyond testing Oswald's hands, why do you feel it necessary to check the jacket sleeve? The jacket was confirmed by Marina to be owned by Oswald. Btw why do you think Oswald would discard his jacket so close to where Tippit was killed?
vs the negative test on his cheek?
Read my previous post.
while the positive result on his hands could just be from handling the revolver that he had in hand when DPD officer McDonald confronted Oswald in the Texas theater.
The DPD said that the pattern of residual matter was typical of firing a weapon.
JohnM
-
Which should have more weight? One test by the WC expert Cunningham that concluded a negative test after firing a rifle 3 times or multiple tests by Dr. Guinn that indicate a high probability of positive test?
As far the jacket, since it cannot be verified who found the jacket and since there was no residue of dirt or oil on the jacket even though it was supposedly thrown under a car in a parking lot, and there was no indication of any gunpowder residue either, and since the jacket (in one recorded camera filming) in the hand of a cop is clearly too WHITE to be anywhere near light blue gray, and since Earlene Roberts could not verify the jacket as the one she saw Oswald “zipping up” as he left the boarding room approx 1:04 pm,
Then the jacket is doubtful as evidence of Oswald being at the at the scene of 10th and Patton , shooting Tippit.
-
Which should have more weight? One test by the WC expert Cunningham that concluded a negative test after firing a rifle 3 times or multiple tests by Dr. Guinn that indicate a high probability of positive test?
As far the jacket, since it cannot be verified who found the jacket and since there was no residue of dirt or oil on the jacket even though it was supposedly thrown under a car in a parking lot, and there was no indication of any gunpowder residue either, and since the jacket (in one recorded camera filming) in the hand of a cop is clearly too WHITE to be anywhere near light blue gray, and since Earlene Roberts could not verify the jacket as the one she saw Oswald “zipping up” as he left the boarding room approx 1:04 pm,
Then the jacket is doubtful as evidence of Oswald being at the at the scene of 10th and Patton , shooting Tippit.
Which should have more weight?
Seriously Zeon? I don't believe that you even asked this question? The actual rifle CE139(C2766) that is exclusively linked to the three shells in the sniper's nest and the bullet fragments discovered in Kennedy's Limo hold's infinite more weight!
As far the jacket, since it cannot be verified who found the jacket and since there was no residue of dirt or oil on the jacket even though it was supposedly thrown under a car in a parking lot, and there was no indication of any gunpowder residue either, and since the jacket (in one recorded camera filming) in the hand of a cop is clearly too WHITE to be anywhere near light blue gray, and since Earlene Roberts could not verify the jacket as the one she saw Oswald “zipping up” as he left the boarding room approx 1:04 pm,
Then the jacket is doubtful as evidence of Oswald being at the at the scene of 10th and Patton , shooting Tippit.
Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket.
Oswald was positively identified either at or leaving the Tippit crime scene, and many of those eyewitnesses said Oswald was wearing a light coloured jacket.
A light coloured jacket was found under a car in a car park, Oswald was seen entering.
The jacket discovered in the carpark had fibres in the sleeve which matched Oswald's arrest shirt.
Oswald was not seen wearing a jacket while in front of the shoe store that Brewer was employed in.
Oswald was not wearing a jacket when he was arrested.
Where is the jacket?
The jacket eyewitnesses
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.
The eyewitnesses who identified Oswald
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
The eyewitnesses who identified Oswald and confirmed Oswald was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
-
“weapon that Oswald owned and used”. LOL.
Right, because this particular Carcano was manufactured differently than all the other Carcanos. We can call it the magic Carcano.
-
Beyond testing Oswald's hands, why do you feel it necessary to check the jacket sleeve? The jacket was confirmed by Marina to be owned by Oswald.
Even if she did (and she thought it was an old shirt), it doesn’t just follow that it was worn by Tippit’s killer.
-
Interesting how “Mytton” leaves out the witness who described a dark rough, wool-like jacket.
And unfair and biased lineups are unreliable.
-
Right, because this particular Carcano was manufactured differently than all the other Carcanos. We can call it the magic Carcano.
Hilarious! We aren't discussing two pristine rifles straight from the factory floor but decades old military surplus rifles with unknown histories. Were they cleaned and serviced identically? Did they fire the exact amount of bullets? Were they stored under similar conditions? Etc etc.
But nice try.
JohnM
-
Interesting how “Mytton” leaves out the witness who described a dark rough, wool-like jacket.
Do you mean the dark, rough, wool-like shirt that Oswald wore over his undershirt (CE150) (https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/oswald-shirt)?
And unfair and biased lineups are unreliable.
They are. So don't attribute much weight to them. There is lots of other reliable evidence.
-
Hilarious! We aren't discussing two pristine rifles straight from the factory floor but decades old military surplus rifles with unknown histories. Were they cleaned and serviced identically? Did they fire the exact amount of bullets? Were they stored under similar conditions? Etc etc.
But nice try.
Hilarious. Guinn tested several.
But nice try.
-
Do you mean the dark, rough, wool-like shirt that Oswald wore over his undershirt (CE150) (https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/oswald-shirt)?
You mean the shirt that was not dark or wool-like and that would have been completely obscured by a zipped up jacket?
They are. So don't attribute much weight to them. There is lots of other reliable evidence.
No. There is no reliable evidence.
-
Hilarious. Guinn tested several.
But nice try.
How does "a rifle" become "several"? Please explain.
Btw it doesn't matter how many Carcano's were tested, Oswald's rifle was proven to produce a negative result! Live with it.
JohnM
-
I guess Mr. Myttons position is that as long as there was one WC test of one person who fired a rifle and the paraffin test was negative on cheeks, that any other multiple testing that shows that it’s a HIGH probability of a positive test result , is irrelevant ?
There was one old guy in the CBS time trial shooting experiment, who was able ( according to Dan Rathers commentary,) to score 3 hits on the target in a time of only 5.1 secs. The shooter did not get a head shot though.
So since it’s apparently possible that one person was able to shoot the MC rifle 3 times while aiming fairly accurately in only 5.1 secs, should we conclude therefore that it’s not that improbable that Oswald could have shot even faster than that because Oswald practiced with the rifle more than any of the CBS shooters did?
Or should we judge according to probability of the whole group of shooters and including the expert shooters who had difficulty with MC rifle bolt operation who all FAILED on their first attempts , to get 2 hits with 1 being a head shot, and after something like 33 attempts they finally managed to get their time down to something like 6-7 secs?
-
I guess Mr. Myttons position is that as long as there was one WC test of one person who fired a rifle and the paraffin test was negative on cheeks, that any other multiple testing that shows that it’s a HIGH probability of a positive test result , is irrelevant ?
I usually take you to be an intelligent young man so I don't understand why you're being deliberately obtuse?
So let me take this slowly, Oswald's rifle was exclusively ballistically linked to the 3 shells in the sniper's nest and the two fragments discovered in Kennedy's Limo and the other random rifle was a decades old military surplus rifle with an unknown history. Do you understand the fundamental difference in what is being scientifically analysed?
And furthermore do you honestly believe it's fair to the grieving Kennedy family to forensically study any other rifle than what was used on the afternoon of the 22nd??
(https://i.postimg.cc/SsCjnSmx/CE-139-Oswald-s-rifle.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2HdJnWc/hulls.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpxGsQVt/WH-Vol17-0142ab.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/mD4YHCkp/WH-Vol17-0141bs.jpg)
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce559.jpg)
JohnM
-
Like “Mytton” knows what was used on the afternoon of the 22nd.
-
We may never know the real identities of the two-assailants responsible for Mr. Tippit's demise, or the nefarious reasons for the events that unfolded at 10th & Patton. The wrongly-accused wasn't there.
-
We may never know the real identities of the two-assailants responsible for Mr. Tippit's demise, or the nefarious reasons for the events that unfolded at 10th & Patton. The wrongly-accused wasn't there.
There is nothing to suggest Tippit was killed by "two-assailants".
-
There is nothing to suggest Tippit was killed by "two-assailants".
Nothing we know, right?
Has there ever been an investigation into a 2 men scenario that came up empty, so we can discard that possibility?
-
There are basically 2 choices (it seems to me) for CT regarding the Tippit shooting.
1.Oswald did it
2. Someone else whom witnesses thought resembled Oswald did it.
If no.1, it’s kind of difficult to offer paranoia as a defense because of the fact that Oswald is recorded on camera saying he did NOT shoot ANYBODY.
So that forces a CT to have to defend a liar and justify the lie also with the same explanation that Oswald was acting out of paranoia of being set up when he shot Tippit 4 times with the last shot point blank in the head.
It’s a lot easier with 2. because now Oswald stating he did not shoot anyone is more likely true.
However, it’s difficult to work out why Oswald would have been in Brewers store if he had gone directly from his boarding room to the Texas theater.
Or, if the imposter Oswald who had shot Tippet went to Brewers store, then he AND Oswald were in the theater when the DPD arrived and the imposter was able to escape?
And why did Oswald supposedly pull out a revolver when DPD officer McDonald approached him, if Oswald had done nothing but decided to go directly from house to theater to see a movie?
So no.2 is kind of a problem too, because it leads to theory of an imposter whom was intentionally setting up Oswald and thus stopped onto Brewers store to try to get attention and to be seen entering the Texas theater, and then the imposter able to give the revolver he had used to Oswald?
Or if the revolver were just placed under Oswald’s seat unbeknownst to Oswald then the McDonald version of the encounter is totally fabricated and other officers present also blatantly lied?
-
There are basically 2 choices (it seems to me) for CT regarding the Tippit shooting.
1.Oswald did it
2. Someone else whom witnesses thought resembled Oswald did it.
If no.1, it’s kind of difficult to offer paranoia as a defense because of the fact that Oswald is recorded on camera saying he did NOT shoot ANYBODY.
So that forces a CT to have to defend a liar and justify the lie also with the same explanation that Oswald was acting out of paranoia of being set up when he shot Tippit 4 times with the last shot point blank in the head.
It’s a lot easier with 2. because now Oswald stating he did not shoot anyone is more likely true.
However, it’s difficult to work out why Oswald would have been in Brewers store if he had gone directly from his boarding room to the Texas theater.
Or, if the imposter Oswald who had shot Tippet went to Brewers store, then he AND Oswald were in the theater when the DPD arrived and the imposter was able to escape?
And why did Oswald supposedly pull out a revolver when DPD officer McDonald approached him, if Oswald had done nothing but decided to go directly from house to theater to see a movie?
So no.2 is kind of a problem too, because it leads to theory of an imposter whom was intentionally setting up Oswald and thus stopped onto Brewers store to try to get attention and to be seen entering the Texas theater, and then the imposter able to give the revolver he had used to Oswald?
Or if the revolver were just placed under Oswald’s seat unbeknownst to Oswald then the McDonald version of the encounter is totally fabricated and other officers present also blatantly lied?
So that forces a CT to have to defend a liar and justify the lie also with the same explanation that Oswald was acting out of paranoia of being set up when he shot Tippit 4 times with the last shot point blank in the
head.
What did did Dom Benavides say that he saw when he looked up after the last shot...... Did he say anything about seeing the killer standing over Tippit? Please check what an eye witness said that he saw.....
Where does this crap about the killer shooting Tippit in the head come from???
-
Jack Tatums statement of observing the shooter (whom he thought was Oswald), shooting 3 shots, then hesitating, then walking around the squad car to shoot a final 4th shot, which was a fatal head shot.
In my opinion , shooting a person already laying in the ground from close range , inflicting a head wound qualifies the phrase “ shooting point blank”.
Now maybe Tatum is making up this story, (because it’s not corroborated by Markam who seems to remember only 3 shots), but it could also be true, because Calloway claims hearing FIVE shots and there were supposedly( if we can believe the finding shells evidence) FOUR spent shells found at the Tippet scene.
So the “evidence” (if true) is
1. 4 spent shells found allegedly matched to the type used by the revolver that is said to be recovered from Oswald’s hand in the the Texas theater.
2. Jack Tatums account of the event which had Oswald (or similar looking person) delivering a final 4th shot at Tippit laying on the ground.
3. The autopsy wounds indicating verification of a fatal head wound from the type bullet projectile fired from the type revolver taken from Oswald’s hand in the Texas theater.
So what I’m saying is : IF the above are true then the only viable option for a CT is to go with a theory that some other person whom resembled Oswald must have done the shooting BECAUSE of Jack Tatums account of the overly dramatic ( and unnecessary ) 4th fatal shot to the head, which is NOT the action of a paranoid Oswald, but instead, the action of some other person with other intentions, one of which may be setting up Oswald, because of the shooters similar appearance per the eyewitness.
Then MAYBE there is some plausibility of an imposter leading the police to the the theater, but it’s still a problematic thing getting the revolver into Oswald’s hand without resorting to claiming DOD office McDonald was a liar.
If Walt Cakebread has some other alternative then please suggest what it may be.
-
We already know that McDonald was a liar (http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-filthy-lies-of-nick-mcdonald.html). But in this case, it's not even necessary to posit that, because how would McDonald know that the gun he initialed in the personnel office hours later was the same gun?
-
There are basically 2 choices (it seems to me) for CT regarding the Tippit shooting.
1.Oswald did it
2. Someone else whom witnesses thought resembled Oswald did it.
If no.1, it’s kind of difficult to offer paranoia as a defense because of the fact that Oswald is recorded on camera saying he did NOT shoot ANYBODY.
So that forces a CT to have to defend a liar and justify the lie also with the same explanation that Oswald was acting out of paranoia of being set up when he shot Tippit 4 times with the last shot point blank in the head.
It’s a lot easier with 2. because now Oswald stating he did not shoot anyone is more likely true.
However, it’s difficult to work out why Oswald would have been in Brewers store if he had gone directly from his boarding room to the Texas theater.
Or, if the imposter Oswald who had shot Tippet went to Brewers store, then he AND Oswald were in the theater when the DPD arrived and the imposter was able to escape?
And why did Oswald supposedly pull out a revolver when DPD officer McDonald approached him, if Oswald had done nothing but decided to go directly from house to theater to see a movie?
So no.2 is kind of a problem too, because it leads to theory of an imposter whom was intentionally setting up Oswald and thus stopped onto Brewers store to try to get attention and to be seen entering the Texas theater, and then the imposter able to give the revolver he had used to Oswald?
Or if the revolver were just placed under Oswald’s seat unbeknownst to Oswald then the McDonald version of the encounter is totally fabricated and other officers present also blatantly lied?
How unlucky can one guy be? JFK was assassinated from Oswald's place of work. Oswald decides to knock off for the day instead of hanging around like everyone else. Instead he decides to go the movies. And he just happens to pass the only scene of the shooting of a DPD officer that would occur within a period of several years. He also looks so much like the shooter that multiple witnesses will later ID him as being present at the scene with a gun. And unlucky again! Oswald has decided for some unknown reason to carry his gun to the movies. Instead of buying a ticket like a normal person, he decides to sneak into the theatre. He is acting to suspiciously that he draws the attention of random citizens. When the police approach him, instead of waiting to learn what they want, he decides to pull his gun and engage in a struggle. When he is searched, he has the same exact two different brands of ammo in his possession that the shooter used to kill Tippit. What are the odds? So unlucky. There is so much evidence against him that CTers can only conclude he is innocent.
-
There is nothing to suggest Tippit was killed by "two-assailants".
Good morning, Mr. Brown
You are one of the few LNs that I genuinely have developed respect for since my initial foray into JFK Assassination Research way back in May, 2014. I've always respected your genuine patriotism and love for your country. Now, that said, after the following post I do not care to discuss this with you any further, because again I respect you, one of the few LNs I believe who truly believes in the institution of government. Where some may find that gullible on your part, I only see it as a patriot who believes all men/women in positions of power embody your same sense of integrity.
Now, there are more than a few eyewitnesses that afternoon who saw multiple assailants ambushing Mr. Tippit. I will only share one of those few instances, because again I'm not going to debate this with you, argue with you, etc. Please read the following link, Mr. Brown, and take it for what it's worth...
https://thegrio.com/2013/11/21/acquilla-clemons-the-black-witness-the-warren-commission-ignored/
Again, this will be my only response to you on this matter, because you have struck me (since May, 2014 when I initially came on the scene bearing a Charlton Heston Ben Hur driven chariot as my avatar) as a man who truly loves his country and wouldn't think other men would ever make a choice to betray our Republic. Bunch of lying treasonous cowards.
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. -- George Washington
Godspeed, Mr. Brown, best wishes to you & yours sir.
The wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
-
How unlucky can one guy be? JFK was assassinated from Oswald's place of work.
Lots of people worked there. Nor do you "know" JFK was assassinated from there.
Oswald decides to knock off for the day instead of hanging around like everyone else.
At least 14 other employees didn't return after the motorcade.
Instead he decides to go the movies.
Other people went to the movies. Are they "unlucky" too?
And he just happens to pass the only scene of the shooting of a DPD officer that would occur within a period of several years.
This is false. It was the only cop killed -- not the only shooting.
He also looks so much like the shooter that multiple witnesses will later ID him as being present at the scene with a gun.
Unfair, biased lineups and a single photo identified months later are unreliable.
And unlucky again! Oswald has decided for some unknown reason to carry his gun to the movies.
If true, does that somehow prove he shot the president with a rifle?
Instead of buying a ticket like a normal person, he decides to sneak into the theatre.
Nobody saw him enter the theater. Julia Postal told both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn't sure if she sold him a ticket or not. Again, is this supposed to be evidence of murder?
He is acting to suspiciously that he draws the attention of random citizens.
This is "Richard"-speak for "he looked funny to a shoe salesman". Again, not evidence of murder.
When the police approach him, instead of waiting to learn what they want, he decides to pull his gun and engage in a struggle.
Nobody in the theater (most notably McDonald himself) testified that Oswald "pulled a gun". The police had no probable cause to search anybody or arrest them for murder.
When he is searched, he has the same exact two different brands of ammo in his possession that the shooter used to kill Tippit.
False. What was "found" in a search done hours after he had been arrested and already searched was Winchester shells.
What are the odds?
What are the odds that "Richard" will misrepresent evidence? Astronomical.
-
Love the way you refute Mr "Smith" point by point, Mr. I...... And If I were Mr. "Smith" I'd be embarrassed to appear to be such a dumbass.
LOL. Nothing was refuted. When I note that Oswald worked in the building from which JFK was assassinated AND passed the scene of the only murder of a DPD within a several year span it is "refuted" because other people worked in the building. HA HA HA. Of course, OTHER people worked in the TSBD. But how many of them passed the scene of the Tippit murder that day? None. How many of them were identified by witnesses as being the gunman at the Tippit murder scene? None other than Oswald. How many of them were arrested with a gun in their possession within about an hour of the assassination? None other than Oswald. How many of them had the exact same two brands of ammo in their possession that were used to murder Tippit? None other than unlucky Ozzie. How many TSBD employees went to the movies and snuck in without buying a ticket? None other than Oswald. How many TSBD employees resisted arrest and tried to pull his gun when approached by the police instead of waiting to find out what they wanted? None other than Oswald. See any common theme? Let me help. The ONLY person present at all these events is named O-S-W-A-L-D. Not any other person who worked in the TSBD or went to the movies that day is involved. Just ONE guy. Over and over again.
-
LOL. Nothing was refuted. When I note that Oswald worked in the building from which JFK was assassinated AND passed the scene of the only murder of a DPD within a several year span it is "refuted" because other people worked in the building. HA HA HA. Of course, OTHER people worked in the TSBD. But how many of them passed the scene of the Tippit murder that day? None. How many of them were identified by witnesses as being the gunman at the Tippit murder scene? None other than Oswald. How many of them were arrested with a gun in their possession within about an hour of the assassination? None other than Oswald. How many of them had the exact same two brands of ammo in their possession that were used to murder Tippit? None other than unlucky Ozzie. How many TSBD employees went to the movies and snuck in without buying a ticket? None other than Oswald. How many TSBD employees resisted arrest and tried to pull his gun when approached by the police instead of waiting to find out what they wanted? None other than Oswald. See any common theme? Let me help. The ONLY person present at all these events is named O-S-W-A-L-D. Not any other person who worked in the TSBD or went to the movies that day is involved. Just ONE guy. Over and over again.
See any common theme?
Yes, you keep repeating claims made as part of the official narrative that may or may not be true.
Just ONE guy.
Are you talking about the guy who was brought out at the front entrance of the Texas Theater or the one who was seen to be escorted by police at the back?
-
Of course, OTHER people worked in the TSBD. But how many of them passed the scene of the Tippit murder that day? None.
How could you possibly know that? Oh yeah, you don’t. You don’t even know that Oswald did. Not that any of this tells you a thing about who killed JFK.
How many of them were identified by witnesses as being the gunman at the Tippit murder scene? None other than Oswald.
How many of them were trotted into an unfair, biased lineup? None other than Oswald.
How many of them were arrested with a gun in their possession within about an hour of the assassination?
Is that supposed to have something to do with JFK?
How many of them had the exact same two brands of ammo in their possession that were used to murder Tippit?
Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.
By the way, what were the two most common makers of .38 ammunition, by far?
How many TSBD employees went to the movies and snuck in without buying a ticket?
If Julia Postal wasn’t sure about this, then how is “Richard”? And again, what does this have to do with JFK?
How many TSBD employees resisted arrest and tried to pull his gun when approached by the police
You don’t know what he “tried to do”.
See any common theme?
Yes. The common theme is that “Richard” spews a bunch of false, unrelated, or unsubstantiated claims and thinks that they are evidence for who killed Kennedy.
-
Good morning, Mr. Brown
You are one of the few LNs that I genuinely have developed respect for since my initial foray into JFK Assassination Research way back in May, 2014. I've always respected your genuine patriotism and love for your country. Now, that said, after the following post I do not care to discuss this with you any further, because again I respect you, one of the few LNs I believe who truly believes in the institution of government. Where some may find that gullible on your part, I only see it as a patriot who believes all men/women in positions of power embody your same sense of integrity.
Now, there are more than a few eyewitnesses that afternoon who saw multiple assailants ambushing Mr. Tippit. I will only share one of those few instances, because again I'm not going to debate this with you, argue with you, etc. Please read the following link, Mr. Brown, and take it for what it's worth...
https://thegrio.com/2013/11/21/acquilla-clemons-the-black-witness-the-warren-commission-ignored/
Again, this will be my only response to you on this matter, because you have struck me (since May, 2014 when I initially came on the scene bearing a Charlton Heston Ben Hur driven chariot as my avatar) as a man who truly loves his country and wouldn't think other men would ever make a choice to betray our Republic. Bunch of lying treasonous cowards.
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. -- George Washington
Godspeed, Mr. Brown, best wishes to you & yours sir.
The wrongly-accused did Not shoot anybody. Anybody.
Hi Alan. Thanks (I think) for the kind words.
First, Acquilla Clemons never suggested that the two men she described seeing were associated with each other.
Second (and I realize you stated that you weren't going to comment further, but I'll ask anyway), what other witness described seeing Tippit encounter two men? The real witnesses who were actually outdoors at the time of the shooting and pretty much saw the whole thing go down (people like Jimmy Burt, Bill Smith, Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham and William Scoggins) all described Tippit encountering just one man. In fact, the article you linked to relies somewhat on Benavides yet ignores the fact that Benavides describes Tippit encountering only one man.
Alan, how did Benavides manage to miss seeing this supposed second culprit?
-
No witness “saw the whole thing go down”, other than (arguably) Markham.
-
No witness “saw the whole thing go down”, other than (arguably) Markham.
I never said ANY witness saw the whole thing go down. Why would you misquote me?
I said these witnesses "pretty much saw the whole thing go down". I specifically included the "pretty much" in order to suggest that the witnesses saw about 97% of what happened versus the full 100%.
Are you suggesting that there was a 2nd man and Domingo Benavides somehow managed to miss seeing him? Do tell.
-
Making up percentages doesn’t make your statement any more correct. Clemons didn’t see any less of it than some of the people you call “real witnesses”.
-
Making up percentages doesn’t make your statement any more correct. Clemons didn’t see any less of it than some of the people you call “real witnesses”.
Nonsense.
Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins all saw more of it than Clemons ever did.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about here.
-
John Iacoletti, you ignored this...
Are you suggesting that there was a 2nd man and Domingo Benavides somehow managed to miss seeing him? Do tell.
-
I’m not suggesting anything other than that you’re cherry-picking the stories you like.
-
I’m not suggesting anything other than that you’re cherry-picking the stories you like.
So then you're simply trolling. Okay.
What did I cherry pick? Explain.
You said Clemons did not see any less of the shooting than some of the witnesses I listed. None of the witnesses I listed stated Tippit encountered two men. I am asking you a direct question. Do you believe Benavides saw two men?
-
Ms. Markham said the shooter of Officer Tippt went down the lane, not down Patton
-
Ms. Markham said the shooter of Officer Tippt went down the lane, not down Patton
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; towards Patton. He didn't run. It just didn't scare him to death. He didn't run. When he saw me he looked at me, stared at me. I put my hands over my face like this, closed my eyes. I gradually opened my fingers like this, and 1 opened my eyes, and when I did he started off in kind of a little trot.
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Sir?
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
"Towards Jefferson", as in down Patton towards Jefferson.
Mr. BALL. When he went towards Jefferson you say he went at sort of a trot?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he cross Patton?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
-
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir; towards Patton. He didn't run. It just didn't scare him to death. He didn't run. When he saw me he looked at me, stared at me. I put my hands over my face like this, closed my eyes. I gradually opened my fingers like this, and 1 opened my eyes, and when I did he started off in kind of a little trot.
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Sir?
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
"Towards Jefferson", as in down Patton towards Jefferson.
No: as in down the lane. As she told Mr. Nigel Turner.
Mr. BALL. When he went towards Jefferson you say he went at sort of a trot?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did he cross Patton?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.
Yes: he crossed Patton and then went out of sight down the lane towards Jefferson. As per her same-day affidavit:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vs9My6cX/Markham-affidavit.png)
Your heroes in the WC couldn't get her to describe the man trotting off out of sight down Patton towards Jefferson. Best they could do was sleight-of-hand the problem with the formula
'Crossed Patton' + 'Towards Jefferson' = 'Down Patton towards Jefferson'
Thumb1:
-
No: as in down the lane. As she told Mr. Nigel Turner.
Yes: he crossed Patton and then went out of sight down the lane towards Jefferson. As per her same-day affidavit:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vs9My6cX/Markham-affidavit.png)
Your heroes in the WC couldn't get her to describe the man trotting off out of sight down Patton towards Jefferson. Best they could do was sleight-of-hand the problem with the formula
'Crossed Patton' + 'Towards Jefferson' = 'Down Patton towards Jefferson'
Thumb1:
What do you suppose "down the lane towards Jefferson" means?
Answer: Down the lane means down Patton towards Jefferson.
-
What do you suppose "down the lane towards Jefferson" means?
Answer: Down the lane means down Patton towards Jefferson.
Patton Lane? :D
The word Ms. Markham used with Mr. Turner was 'alley' btw. She said the man went over the fence and down the alley.
Guess we'll have to refine your 'Answer': Over the fence and down the alley means down Patton towards Jefferson.
:D
-
Helen Markham to the Secret Service (12/2/63):
"When he got to the corner of Patton Avenue and Tenth Street, he started running. He ran at an angle across Patton Ave., and the last time I saw him, he was running down Patton Avenue toward Jefferson Street."
Helen Markham, FBI report (3/16/64):
"After OSWALD had gotten to the southeast corner of Patton and 10th, he started running diagonally across the street in a southwesterly direction to the west side of Patton. She last saw OSWALD as he was running down Patton Street."
-
Helen Markham to the Secret Service (12/2/63):
"When he got to the corner of Patton Avenue and Tenth Street, he started running. He ran at an angle across Patton Ave., and the last time I saw him, he was running down Patton Avenue toward Jefferson Street."
Helen Markham, FBI report (3/16/64):
"After OSWALD had gotten to the southeast corner of Patton and 10th, he started running diagonally across the street in a southwesterly direction to the west side of Patton. She last saw OSWALD as he was running down Patton Street."
Indeed------there are times when she appears to be saying what the 'investigating' authorities want to hear, and times when she isn't saying what they want to hear.
You, being a devout Warren Gullible, cherry-pick the times she is on script, and never mention the off-script stuff.
Thumb1:
-
Indeed------there are times when she appears to be saying what the 'investigating' authorities want to hear, and times when she isn't saying what they want to hear.
You, being a devout Warren Gullible, cherry-pick the times she is on script, and never mention the off-script stuff.
Thumb1:
The "off-script stuff", as in the statement for The Men Who Killed Kennedy twenty-five years later? You do realize what you refer to as what she "told Nigel Turner" was in 1988. Right?
-
The "off-script stuff", as in the statement for The Men Who Killed Kennedy twenty-five years later?
No, lol.
Her same-day affidavit is already an embarrassment to your cause: "ran west on E. 10th across Patton Street and went out of sight".
As is her WC testimony:
"Towards Jefferson, right across that way" = a very different proposition to 'Towards Jefferson, down Patton'. (Mr. Ball, of course, knows better than to clarify for the record where Ms. Markham is pointing as she says these words.)
You do realize what you refer to as what she "told Nigel Turner" was in 1988. Right?
So what? What she clearly states in 1988 cleanly explains the curiously ambiguous wording we find in her affidavit and WC testimony.
Your problem, cherry-picker, not mine!
Thumb1:
-
From 12/3/63 FBI interview report for Mr. Frank Cimino:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8MKGmcV/Cimino-Markham-alley.jpg)
Must have been a different waitress to Ms. Markham. Right, Mr. Brown? :D
-
So then you're simply trolling. Okay.
No, you’re trolling by traipsing along here and just declaring that Clemons is not a “real witness”.
You said Clemons did not see any less of the shooting than some of the witnesses I listed. None of the witnesses I listed stated Tippit encountered two men. I am asking you a direct question. Do you believe Benavides saw two men?
I believe that Clemons saw two men. So did Frank Wright. So did Doris Holan. You’re cherry-picking by presuming that Benavides not mentioning two men somehow entitles you to ignore the other accounts.
-
No, you’re trolling by traipsing along here and just declaring that Clemons is not a “real witness”.
I believe that Clemons saw two men. So did Frank Wright. So did Doris Holan. You’re cherry-picking by presuming that Benavides not mentioning two men somehow entitles you to ignore the other accounts.
Clemmons said she saw two men walking in opposite directions on opposite sides of Patton Street at some point after the shots were fired.
Frank Wright only said he saw one man who got into two-tone '51 Plymouth coupe parked on 10th and drove off.
Holan said that, after the shooting, she saw one man hurrying west on 10th. At about the same time, she saw another man walk up the driveway next to 404, look at Tippit and walk back. There's also a Dallas Police car in the driveway, which is able to miraculously drive back up the driveway to the alley without running into the garage at the end of the driveway.
None of these stories match the other.
-
No, you’re trolling by traipsing along here and just declaring that Clemons is not a “real witness”.
I believe that Clemons saw two men. So did Frank Wright. So did Doris Holan. You’re cherry-picking by presuming that Benavides not mentioning two men somehow entitles you to ignore the other accounts.
So did Frank Wright.
BS: BS: BS:
“I was sitting watching television with my wife. I was sitting in a chair next to the door. I wasn’t but two steps from the door. I heard shots. I knew it wasn’t backfire. I knew it was shots. As soon as I heard them, I went out the door. I could see a police car in the next block. It was toward the end of the next block. I could see it clearly. The police car was headed toward me. It was parked on the south side of the street. In other words, it was parked across the street from our apartment house. I saw a person right by the car. He had fallen down. It seems as if he had just fallen down. He was on the ground, and then he turned over face down. Part of him was under the left front fender of the car. It seems to me that I saw him just as he hit the ground. I saw him turn over and he didn’t move any more.
“I looked around to see what had happened. I knew there had been a shooting. I saw a man standing right in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on the ground. He stood there for a while and looked at the man. The man who was standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat. It ended just above his hands. I didn’t see any gun. He ran around on the passenger side of the police car. He ran as fast as he could go and he got into his car. He car was a grey, little old coupe. It was about a 1950–1951, maybe a Plymouth. It was a grey car, parked on the same side of the street as the police car but beyond it from me. It was heading away from me. He got in that car and he drove away as quick as you could see. He drove down 10th Street, away from me. I don’t know how far he drove. After he got into the middle of the next block between Patton and Crawford, I didn’t look at him any more.
“I looked at the car where the man was. I looked to see what had happened there. About the same time as I came out, or maybe a little while after, a woman came down from her porch. She was at the house about three or four doors from the intersection of 10th and Patton. The house was on the same side of the street as the police car. Just as the man in the car pulled away she came toward the police car and then she stepped back. I heard her shout, ‘Oh, he’s been shot!’ throwing up her hands. Then she went back toward the house. There was no one out there except me and that woman when I got there, except for the man I described earlier. I couldn’t figure out who did the shooting. I didn’t see a gun on the man who was standing in front of the car. There wasn’t anyone else but the man who drove away and the woman who came down from her porch. I was the first person out. I knew there wasn’t anyone else there at all. It wasn’t any time at all until the ambulance got there. By the time the ambulance got there, there were maybe 25 more people outside. Then after a while, the police came up. I tried to tell two or three people what I saw. They didn’t pay any attention. I’ve seen what came out on television and in the papers but I know that’s not what happened. I know a man drove off in a grey car. Nothing in the world’s going to change my opinion. I saw that man drive off in a grey coupe just as clear as I was born. I know what I saw The can say all they want about a fellow running away, but I can’t accept this because I saw a fellow get in a car and drive away."
Frank Wright.
JohnM
-
Frank Wright reportedly told Dallas reporter Earl Golz that he saw a second man leaving on foot.
-
Frank Wright reportedly told Dallas reporter Earl Golz that he saw a second man leaving on foot.
If it was to Golz, then it was 10-15 years after the fact. The Nashes' quotation of his story appears to be complete, and a second man disappearing from the scene was exactly the sort of thing that the Nashes were looking for.
Also, of Markham, Benavides, Scoggins, the Davises, Clemons, and (yes) Mrs Wright, how many others saw the car and man that Wright claims to have seen?
There's one more thing to consider with regard to Frank Wright. As I wrote in another forum a few years back:
"The fun part about Mr Wright's testimony is that it's a complete outlier from the rest, until you read Jimmy Burt's FBI 302. In Burt's version, the car is his (though it's a two-tone '52 Ford rather than a two-tone '51 Plymouth). Burt claimed that he drove up to Tippit's car, got out to see that Tippit was dead, then got back in and drove off.
"Oh, and did I mention that Burt and Wright lived in adjacent buildings (ie, 501 and 505 10th St)?"
-
If it was to Golz, then it was 10-15 years after the fact. The Nashes' quotation of his story appears to be complete, and a second man disappearing from the scene was exactly the sort of thing that the Nashes were looking for.
Also, of Markham, Benavides, Scoggins, the Davises, Clemons, and (yes) Mrs Wright, how many others saw the car and man that Wright claims to have seen?
There's one more thing to consider with regard to Frank Wright. As I wrote in another forum a few years back:
"The fun part about Mr Wright's testimony is that it's a complete outlier from the rest, until you read Jimmy Burt's FBI 302. In Burt's version, the car is his (though it's a two-tone '52 Ford rather than a two-tone '51 Plymouth). Burt claimed that he drove up to Tippit's car, got out to see that Tippit was dead, then got back in and drove off.
"Oh, and did I mention that Burt and Wright lived in adjacent buildings (ie, 501 and 505 10th St)?"
was exactly the sort of thing that the Nashes were looking for.
How do you know that the Nashes were looking for?
-
LHO shot Tippit in broad daylight on a public street in front of numerous people who later ID him as the killer. He was arrested a short while away with the gun and the SAME two brands of ammunition used to kill Tippit. The level of pedantic CTer nitpicking in a desperate attempt to exonerate him from this crime borders on the absurd. This is no doubt - none - that Oswald murdered Tippit.
-
LHO shot Tippit in broad daylight on a public street in front of numerous people who later ID him as the killer.
BS: Only one person saw anybody shoot Tippit: Helen "didn't recognize anybody" Markham.
He was arrested a short while away with the gun
BS: The bullets that killed Tippit could not be matched to any specific gun.
and the SAME two brands of ammunition used to kill Tippit.
BS: Oswald was allegedly searched for a third time after his arrest, when allegedly a bus transfer and some Winchester (only) bullets were "found" in his pockets.
The level of pedantic CTer nitpicking in a desperate attempt to exonerate him from this crime borders on the absurd. This is no doubt - none - that Oswald murdered Tippit.
What's absurd is how you blatantly lie about and misrepresent the actual evidence.
-
No, you’re trolling by traipsing along here and just declaring that Clemons is not a “real witness”.
I believe that Clemons saw two men. So did Frank Wright. So did Doris Holan. You’re cherry-picking by presuming that Benavides not mentioning two men somehow entitles you to ignore the other accounts.
So let me get this straight.
You're saying that Clemons saw as much of the shooting event as did Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins?
-
None of them saw “the shooting event” (except arguably Markham). They all saw some piece of the aftermath. Disparaging some of them as not “real witnesses” is cherry-picking.
-
None of them saw “the shooting event” (except arguably Markham). They all saw some piece of the aftermath. Disparaging some of them as not “real witnesses” is cherry-picking.
You didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it.
Are you really saying that Clemons saw as much of the interaction between Tippit and his killer(s) as did Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins?
-
You didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it.
Are you really saying that Clemons saw as much of the interaction between Tippit and his killer(s) as did Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins?
These are "flat Earthers". They wouldn't be arguing these positions if they could be influenced by facts and reason. Imagine attempting to draw some false pedantic distinction between seeing Oswald pull the trigger and seeing at the scene at the moment of the shooting holding a gun is laughable. What do they think Oswald was doing there at the moment of the shooting with a gun? While also acknowledging that at least one person did in fact see him pull the trigger. Wow. By this ridiculous standard, no one saw John Wilkes Booth shoot Lincoln. They heard a gunshot and turned in that direction to see Booth holding a smoking gun to Lincon's head. Perhaps Lincoln committed suicide and Booth merely picked up the gun. It's possible using the contrarian standard. Then he realized it looked bad and made a run for it. No one can disprove it to the subjective satisfaction of our contrarians.
-
You didn't answer my question. I'll rephrase it.
Are you really saying that Clemons saw as much of the interaction between Tippit and his killer(s) as did Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins?
You’re not making any sense. Burt and Smith heard some shots and then described what they saw afterwards. Acquilla Clemons and Frank Wright heard some shots and described what they saw afterwards.
-
Did the FBI intimidate the other witnesses like they did Clemons? Apparently she felt the FBI was either ignoring her or worse, wanted her to shut up.
If it were a simple case of Clemons just confusing Calloway as a 2nd man with a gun , then should not she have been able to IF Calloway as that man?
-
Did the FBI intimidate the other witnesses like they did Clemons? Apparently she felt the FBI was either ignoring her or worse, wanted her to shut up.
If it were a simple case of Clemons just confusing Calloway as a 2nd man with a gun , then should not she have been able to IF Calloway as that man?
Clemons never claimed that there was a second man with a gun.
-
Sorry, I spelled his name wrong, it was spelled “Callaway”on the JFK witness page
Apparently he picked up Tippits revolver off the ground and placed it on the hood of Tippets police car. IDK if this could be coincidental with Clemons going out to see the scene, but by that time the gunman who shot Tippet should have theoretically already left the scene before Clemons could have seen him.
-
My mistake again $&@-! Clemons saw ONE man with a handgun of some sort waving off another man.
Imo, her description of the man with gun in hand doesn’t really match Callaway.
-
You’re not making any sense. Burt and Smith heard some shots and then described what they saw afterwards. Acquilla Clemons and Frank Wright heard some shots and described what they saw afterwards.
Bill Smith: "Saw Oswald running and the policeman falling."
Jimmy Burt: "They talked for a minute, we stood watching, just curious. We heard the shots. We turned. I told Bill, I said "Billy, that guy just shot that policeman."
Domingo Benavides: "I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car... The man was standing to the right side of the car, riders side of the car, and was standing right in front of the windshield on the right front fender. And then I heard the shot... Then I heard the other two shots and I looked up and the Policeman was in, he seemed like he kind of stumbled and fell."
Helen Markham: "The policeman calmly opened the car door, very slowly, wasn't angry or nothing, he calmly crawled out of this car, and I still just thought a friendly conversation, maybe disturbance in the house, I did not know; well, just as the policeman got... And just as he had gotten even with the wheel on the driver's side... this man shot the policeman. He fell to the ground, and his cap went a little ways out on the street."
William Scoggins: "Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on. Then he (Tippit) took about a step, I would say, or approximately one or two steps, and then I wasn't really, you know, I went back to my eating, and about that time I heard the shots. Then I saw the man falling, grab his stomach and fall."
So we have this...
Bill Smith: Saw Tippit falling.
Domingo Benavides: Saw Tippit kind of stumble and fall.
Helen Markham: Saw Tippit fall to the ground and saw his cap go a little ways out into the street.
William Scoggins: Saw Tippit grab his stomach and fall.
Acquila Clemons: "I thought it was firecrackers. I wasn’t paying any attention."
-
Wow, nothing like reinforcing your cherry-picking with even more blatant cherry picking. As if that’s the only thing she said.
-
Wow, nothing like reinforcing your cherry-picking with even more blatant cherry picking. As if that’s the only thing she said.
You've completely missed the point. You'd realize this if you'd stop trolling so much.
The witnesses I listed, the REAL witnesses, saw Tippit talking to the man who would eventually shoot him and/or saw Tippit getting out of the patrol car to begin to walk around the car toward the man.
Clemons saw none of this. You are foolish to claim that Clemons saw as much as these REAL witnesses.
You won't answer the question. How did Benavides manage to miss seeing a supposed 2nd culprit? Jimmy Burt saw the man walking alone approximately forty-five seconds before the encounter with Tippit. How did Burt manage to miss a supposed 2nd culprit? Markham saw the shooting, one man. How did Markham manage to miss a supposed 2nd culprit? Please explain.
-
My mistake again $&@-! Clemons saw ONE man with a handgun of some sort waving off another man.
Imo, her description of the man with gun in hand doesn’t really match Callaway.
Shirley Martin interviewed Clemons is the summer of 1964, putting it on tape. It's Clemons first recorded interview. In that one, Martin asks Clemons to describe the gunman, but Clemons says she cant because she doesn't remember ("It's been too long"). Martin follows up with a leading question, "Was he fat?" Clemons jumps at that, and after that Clemons always described the gunman as "fat" or "chunky." But was that what Clemons really remembered, or was it something generated in response to Martin's leading question?
-
The witnesses I listed, the REAL witnesses, saw Tippit talking to the man who would eventually shoot him and/or saw Tippit getting out of the patrol car to begin to walk around the car toward the man.
Smith and Burt didn’t. And yet you still call them “real witnesses”. Neither did David, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard. Are they also not “real witnesses”? Admit it, “real witness” to you is somebody who supports your little narrative.
The “firecrackers” comment was Myers-style rhetoric and beneath you.
You won't answer the question. How did Benavides manage to miss seeing a supposed 2nd culprit?
It’s a silly unanswerable question. Different witnesses had different vantage points and different views of the surrounding area.
Jimmy Burt saw the man walking alone approximately forty-five seconds before the encounter with Tippit. How did Burt manage to miss a supposed 2nd culprit? Markham saw the shooting, one man. How did Markham manage to miss a supposed 2nd culprit? Please explain.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
Also, how did Scoggins manage to miss Markham standing there on the corner at all?
-
Smith and Burt didn’t. And yet you still call them “real witnesses”. Neither did David, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard. Are they also not “real witnesses”? Admit it, “real witness” to you is somebody who supports your little narrative.
Per the 1968 interview with Al Chapman, Jimmy Burt indeed saw Tippit talking to the man who was walking on the sidewalk.
As for the Davis sisters-in-law, Callaway and Guinyard, you're creating a straw man here. I haven't mentioned these witnesses, re: the real witnesses who saw more than Clemons.
Do you agree that Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham and William Scoggins all saw Tippit BEFORE he was gunned down, something which Clemons did not see?
-
Per the 1968 interview with Al Chapman, Jimmy Burt indeed saw Tippit talking to the man who was walking on the sidewalk.
Cite, please.
As for the Davis sisters-in-law, Callaway and Guinyard, you're creating a straw man here. I haven't mentioned these witnesses, re: the real witnesses who saw more than Clemons.
It’s not a strawman, it was merely a question. Do you consider Davis, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard to be “real witnesses” or not, despite them not seeing “Tippit before he was gunned down”?
Do you agree that Domingo Benavides, Helen Markham and William Scoggins all saw Tippit BEFORE he was gunned down, something which Clemons did not see?
Yes, I agree. Do you agree that William Smith did not see Tippit before he was gunned down?
-
Cite, please.
It’s not a strawman, it was merely a question. Do you consider Davis, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard to be “real witnesses” or not, despite them not seeing “Tippit before he was gunned down”?
Yes, I agree. Do you agree that William Smith did not see Tippit before he was gunned down?
Cite, please.
I already did, in the original comment. The 1968 Al Chapman interview with Burt. Burt described being in the front yard of the house on the corner of Tenth and Denver (one block east of Tenth and Patton) and seeing the man who would eventually shoot the police officer walking east to west on Tenth, across the street from the front yard he was in. If you're unaware of this, then you really shouldn't be discussing Jimmy Burt at all.
It’s not a strawman, it was merely a question. Do you consider Davis, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard to be “real witnesses” or not, despite them not seeing “Tippit before he was gunned down”?
Unrelated. Clemons didn't see anywhere near as much as the REAL witnesses, people like Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins. These witnesses saw Tippit talking to the man and/or get out of the patrol car. These witnesses (sans Burt) literally saw Tippit fall. Hell, Burt probably saw Tippit fall, too, but I haven't found any record of him literally saying it. Clemons? She thought she heard firecrackers.
Yes, I agree. Do you agree that William Smith did not see Tippit before he was gunned down?
"We noticed the policeman pull up and talk to this guy" -- Jimmy Burt, 1968 interview with Al Chapman
Burt tells us that both he and Smith saw Tippit's patrol car pull up alongside the man walking. Clemons didn't see such a thing.
-
I already did, in the original comment. The 1968 Al Chapman interview with Burt.
So you don’t know what a cite is any more than you understand what trolling is. I’m certainly not going to take your word about what Burt said, but I find it interesting that you are relying on an interview from over 4 years later, given what you typically say about details added later (for example with Mrs Roberts).
No need to be coy though, because I found the audio that Litwin posted to YouTube. It’s an interesting listen, particularly the part about not being able to identify the person he saw. It’s also interesting that they went down Patton and didn’t see anybody between 10th and Jefferson (including Callaway and Guinyard) , and this was all before the ambulance arrived. And somehow the guy they noticed was already down the alley at Crawford.
You still haven’t explained (given your odd standard about seeing Tippit before the shooting) what makes Smith a “real witness” and Clemons not. Because Smith is not on record anywhere about seeing anything before hearing the shots (even 4 years later).
Stop avoiding the question. Are Davis, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard “real witnesses” or not?
Unrelated. Clemons didn't see anywhere near as much as the REAL witnesses, people like Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins. These witnesses saw Tippit talking to the man and/or get out of the patrol car. These witnesses (sans Burt) literally saw Tippit fall. Hell, Burt probably saw Tippit fall, too, but I haven't found any record of him literally saying it.
“Probably”. LOL.
Clemons? She thought she heard firecrackers.
This stupid rhetoric again. Lots of people in Dealey Plaza thought the first shot was a firecracker or a backfire too. So what? Not real witnesses?
Clemons ran out right after she heard shots. So what if she didn’t see Tippit fall? She saw a chunky guy with a gun waving off a second guy.
-
Unless Clemons was exaggerating or paranoid, then she thought the FBI was threatening her, which if true would be singling her out vs the other witnesses.
That was the year 1963 , therefore it seems unlikely to me that an elderly black lady would have dared risk saying anything contrary to the official early reports, unless there was some reason like the opportunity to be interviewed by Mark Lane.
That opportunity of a few minutes of fame , however, would be taking a big risk to her life and exposing her to public criticism, possible ridicule or maybe even having an unusual death as some other witnesses seem to have had not long after they gave a story that seriously upset the official narrative.
So it seems improbable that Clemons would have just made up totally false story , let alone willing go on camera talking to Mark Lane just for a few minutes of fame.
Therefore, a more probable reason imo, for Clemons to agree to get filmed by Mark Lane telling her contrary version of the event was that she WAS intimidated by the FBI and felt she HAD to let the public know that the FBI had threatened her.
-
From 12/3/63 FBI interview report for Mr. Frank Cimino:
(https://i.postimg.cc/L8MKGmcV/Cimino-Markham-alley.jpg)
Must have been a different waitress to Ms. Markham. Right, Mr. Brown? :D
Well!
In the same FBI report for Mr. Cimino we get the following information:
(https://i.postimg.cc/8cWyjvwV/Cimino-alley-marked.jpg)
Confirmation that Ms. Markham, right from the very start, was saying that the gunman ran into the alley off Patton
-
And then there's this, dated 11/22/63:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QM5fd1Mk/Tippit-alley-witnesses-marked.png)
Don't cry, Mr. Brown! Thumb1:
-
Now!
I'm going to do something that will strike some here as wild and kooky. I'm going to not assume that the MULTIPLE witnesses who had the gunman go off into the alley were all on L.S.D. at lunchtime that day. I'm going to suggest-----------and please humor me here, folks----------that the reason MULTIPLE witnesses had the gunman go off into the alley was that...... well...... how do I put this delicately?...... the gunman actually did go off into the alley.
Question: What scenario might flow from this thought?
Suggestion: Start with the fact that Ms. Markham told Officers Poe & Jez that the gunman was "wearing a brown jacket"
Thumb1:
-
12/15/63 interview report for Mr. Jimmy Earl Burt:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wz1kyFfP/Jimmy-Earl-Burt-ALLEY-crop.png)
Gee, it's almost as if the gunman ran off into the alley..............
???
-
But, but, but!
Messrs. Callaway & Co. saw the gunman run down Patton but NOT turn off into the alley.
Right?
Think, friends, think!
-
So you don’t know what a cite is any more than you understand what trolling is. I’m certainly not going to take your word about what Burt said, but I find it interesting that you are relying on an interview from over 4 years later, given what you typically say about details added later (for example with Mrs Roberts).
No need to be coy though, because I found the audio that Litwin posted to YouTube. It’s an interesting listen, particularly the part about not being able to identify the person he saw. It’s also interesting that they went down Patton and didn’t see anybody between 10th and Jefferson (including Callaway and Guinyard) , and this was all before the ambulance arrived. And somehow the guy they noticed was already down the alley at Crawford.
You still haven’t explained (given your odd standard about seeing Tippit before the shooting) what makes Smith a “real witness” and Clemons not. Because Smith is not on record anywhere about seeing anything before hearing the shots (even 4 years later).
Stop avoiding the question. Are Davis, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard “real witnesses” or not?
“Probably”. LOL.
This stupid rhetoric again. Lots of people in Dealey Plaza thought the first shot was a firecracker or a backfire too. So what? Not real witnesses?
Clemons ran out right after she heard shots. So what if she didn’t see Tippit fall? She saw a chunky guy with a gun waving off a second guy.
So you don’t know what a cite is any more than you understand what trolling is.
Do you really want to argue about stupid Spotty Avocada? You asked for a cite. I gave you a cite. Actually, I provided the cite in the original comment.
Just because I did not provide a link or post an image of the transcript of the interview does not mean than I did not give you a cite. Grow up.
No need to be coy though, because I found the audio that Litwin posted to YouTube.
Who's being coy? Since you've (finally) listened to the audio, does Jimmy Burt say that he saw the man who would eventually shoot Tippit walking along Tenth across the street from the yard he (Burt) was in, as I stated? Or not?
-
But, but, but!
Messrs. Callaway & Co. saw the gunman run down Patton but NOT turn off into the alley.
Right?
Think, friends, think!
Burt and Smith proceeded down Patton toward Jefferson, with the intention of going all the way to Jefferson. Once they were halfway down Patton, they got to the alley. They looked west along the alley and saw the killer in the alley, almost down to the next street (Crawford). They assumed the killer went into the alley as the killer fled halfway down Patton; a natural assumption, though incorrect.
-
Burt and Smith proceeded down Patton toward Jefferson, with the intention of going all the way to Jefferson. Once they were halfway down Patton, they got to the alley. They looked west along the alley and saw the killer in the alley, almost down to the next street (Crawford). They assumed the killer went into the alley as the killer fled halfway down Patton; a natural assumption, though incorrect.
:D
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wz1kyFfP/Jimmy-Earl-Burt-ALLEY-crop.png)
Let's compare!
Mr. JIMMY EARL BURT: BURT said he ran to the interesection of 10th and Patton and when he was close enough to Patton Street to see to the south he saw the man running into an alley located between 10th and Jefferson Avenue on Patton Street. The man ran in the alley to the right
Mr. BILL BROWN: Burt and Smith proceeded down Patton toward Jefferson, with the intention of going all the way to Jefferson. Once they were halfway down Patton, they got to the alley. They looked west along the alley and saw the killer in the alley, almost down to the next street (Crawford).
Like I say: :D
-
Big thanks to Mr. Bill Brown for the big laughs he's given us so far:
1. The alley off Patton Street = Patton Street itself
2. At the intersection of Tenth and Patton, looking south down Patton = halfway down Patton
:D + :D = Thumb1:
What's the next comic delight Mr. Bill Brown is going to spring on us?
Perhaps Mr. Bill Brown will parse the information in this--------------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/QM5fd1Mk/Tippit-alley-witnesses-marked.png)
--------------------as: Yeah, six to eight witnesses told Poe & Jez they were having ice cream in Dean's Dairy and saw a man in an alley
We await Mr. Bill Brown's next contribution with bated breath..................
-
Alan Ford, apparently you aren't familiar at all with the 1968 Jimmy Burt interview with Al Chapman.
-
Alan Ford, apparently you aren't familiar at all with the 1968 Jimmy Burt interview with Al Chapman.
~Grin~
Perfectly familiar with it, Mr. Bill Brown--------just as I am perfectly familiar by now with your cherry-picking games.
As you well know, Mr. Burt tells Mr. Chapman a completely different story to the one he was telling back in Dec '63.
No less unfortunately for him (and for your latest cherry-picking game), his 1968 story is flatly contradicted also by the story told by his buddy Mr. William Smith in Dec '63----------
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNp2Z6kp/William-Arthur-Smith-12-Dec-63-marked.jpg)
-----------and in his WC testimony:
Mr. BALL. And he ran in what direction?
Mr. SMITH. West.
Mr. BALL. Did you follow him?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you go down to where the policeman was shot?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Mr. Burt's 1968 absurd tall tale involving himself and Mr. Smith proceeding down Patton together is thus refuted. He went to the intersection of Tenth and Patton WITHOUT Mr. Smith, and from there saw the gunman run off into an alley.
Don't cry, Mr. Bill Brown!
Thumb1:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/HG6DPhYm.jpg)
Too small to read!
-
Can anyone else read the photo documents that Mr.Brown just posted cause it’s all blurry on my smart phone screen when I zoom in and YES I’m wearing my reading glasses and the glasses work and I’m not going blind, so maybe Bill can post those documents some other way ?
-
Can anyone else read the photo documents that Mr.Brown just posted cause it’s all blurry on my smart phone screen when I zoom in and YES I’m wearing my reading glasses and the glasses work and I’m not going blind, so maybe Bill can post those documents some other way ?
One can't be sure, Mr. Mason, but I think it may be merely a transcript of the Chapman/Burt 1968 interview, in which Mr. Burt tells his easily debunked New Improved Story
-
Now!
I'm going to do something that will strike some here as wild and kooky. I'm going to not assume that the MULTIPLE witnesses who had the gunman go off into the alley were all on L.S.D. at lunchtime that day. I'm going to suggest-----------and please humor me here, folks----------that the reason MULTIPLE witnesses had the gunman go off into the alley was that...... well...... how do I put this delicately?...... the gunman actually did go off into the alley.
Question: What scenario might flow from this thought?
Suggestion: Start with the fact that Ms. Markham told Officers Poe & Jez that the gunman was "wearing a brown jacket"
Thumb1:
So! Ms. Markham's first description of the jacket's color was: brown.
Now! Cf. this from Mr. William Arthur Smith's Dec 63 interview report
(https://i.postimg.cc/Ss6NbLY4/William-Arthur-Smith-jacket.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
@Alan Ford: hey, Mr.Ford could you please post some of your excellent photo and film frames analysis to explain / demonstrate to Mr. Doyle why virtually no one on the this Forum still believes that PM is Sarah Stanton?
-
@Alan Ford: hey, Mr.Ford could you please post some of your excellent photo and film frames analysis to explain / demonstrate to Mr. Doyle why virtually no one on the this Forum still believes that PM is Sarah Stanton?
Complete waste of time, Mr. Mason
-
So! Ms. Markham's first description of the jacket's color was: brown.
Now! Cf. this from Mr. William Arthur Smith's Dec 63 interview report
(https://i.postimg.cc/Ss6NbLY4/William-Arthur-Smith-jacket.jpg)
Thumb1:
So! Ms. Markham's first description of the jacket's color was: brown.
And! Mr. Smith's description of the jacket was: light brown
Now! Cf. this from the WC testimony of Mr. Domingo Benavides:
"he had a light-beige jacket"
The hyphen can only have been added by the stenographer: Mr. Benavides is describing two qualities of the jacket--------------it was light [i.e. not heavy] and was beige or tan in color.
Thumb1:
-
So! Ms. Markham's first description of the jacket's color was: brown.
And! Mr. Smith's description of the jacket was: light brown
Now! Cf. this from the WC testimony of Mr. Domingo Benavides:
"he had a light-beige jacket"
The hyphen can only have been added by the stenographer: Mr. Benavides is describing two qualities of the jacket--------------it was light [i.e. not heavy] and was beige or tan in color.
Thumb1:
So! Ms. Markham's first description of the jacket's color was: brown.
And! Mr. Smith's description of the jacket was: light brown
And! Mr. Benavides' description of the jacket was: beige
Now! From the WC testimony of Ms. Virginia Davis:
"He had on a light-brown-tan jacket"
Thumb1:
-
How could they mistake a light blue gray jacket as a light BROWN jacket?
-
How could they mistake a light blue gray jacket as a light BROWN jacket?
How could some witnesses see the gunman go into the alley off Patton and other witnesses see the gunman go all the way down Patton and turn onto Jefferson?
-
Can anyone else read the photo documents that Mr.Brown just posted cause it’s all blurry on my smart phone screen when I zoom in and YES I’m wearing my reading glasses and the glasses work and I’m not going blind, so maybe Bill can post those documents some other way ?
Sorry Zeon. I deleted the original post with the Burt interview since the images were too small for some. I'll repost the images a little bigger tomorrow when I have more time. Thanks goes to Fred Litwin for the transcripts of the interview.
-
How could some witnesses see the gunman go into the alley off Patton and other witnesses see the gunman go all the way down Patton and turn onto Jefferson?
How do we reconcile the two following recollections from men who saw the gunman from the same location?
1.
Mr. CALLAWAY: I could see this taxicab parked down on Patton. I saw the cabdriver beside his cab, and saw a man cutting from one side of the street to the other. That would be the east side of Patton and over to the west side of Patton. And he was running.
2.
Mr. GUINYARD: [H]e come down Patton until he got to about 5 feet from the corner of Jefferson and then he turned across and went across to the west corner on Jefferson.
Mr. BALL. What side of the street did you see him coming down on?
Mr. GUINYARD. He was on the left side--when he come down--it would be the east side.
Two starkly different stories!
Here's CE537, with Mr. Callaway's markings showing the route down Patton he saw the gunman take:
(https://i.postimg.cc/c43J4LLY/Callaway-CE537.jpg)
And here, in added red, is Mr. Guinyard's recollection of the route down Patton he saw the gunman take:
(https://i.postimg.cc/9MvrJRfm/Callaway-CE537-guinyard.jpg)
Mr. Callaway: opposite side of the street to us-------WEST side
Mr. Guinyard: same side of the street to us-------EAST side
Mr: Callaway: the closest distance he was to us: ~56 feet.
Mr. Guinyard: closest distance: ~10 feet
I repeat the question: How do we reconcile these two recollections?
Answer: We can't. Something is wrong with one of these recollections.
And that something gives us a very important clue as to how the weird brown jacket/white jacket + alley/Patton-to-Jefferson dualities are to be resolved.
-
Two inarguable statements:
1. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw the gunman go off into the alley off Patton.
2. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw the gunman go all the way down Patton to Jefferson.
How on earth can both of these things possibly be true?
They can't.
But change the wording ever so slightly, and the solution comes into view--------------------
1. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw a man with a gun go into the alley off Patton.
2. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw a man with a gun go all the way down Patton to Jefferson.
Thumb1:
-
Do you really want to argue about stupid Spotty Avocada? You asked for a cite. I gave you a cite. Actually, I provided the cite in the original comment.
Just because I did not provide a link or post an image of the transcript of the interview does not mean than I did not give you a cite. Grow up.
No, Bill. A citation includes information on how to locate the thing you’re citing.
Who's being coy? Since you've (finally) listened to the audio, does Jimmy Burt say that he saw the man who would eventually shoot Tippit walking along Tenth across the street from the yard he (Burt) was in, as I stated? Or not?
So what if he did? He said he couldn’t identify that man.
As I already said, that doesn’t help you with regard to your “real witness” William Smith, does it?
Still conspicuously absent: your answer to the question of whether Davis, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard were “real witnesses” per your standard.
-
So Bill would have us believe that the gunman got all the way down Patton and turned on Jefferson before Burt got to a place where he could look south on Patton, and then the gunman went over a block, cut through a parking lot, left a jacket under a car, and got back up to the alley all before Burt could go half a block down Patton to look down the alley. And this all happened and Burt still got back up to 10th before the ambulance arrived.
-
But change the wording ever so slightly, and the solution comes into view--------------------
1. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw a man with a gun go into the alley off Patton.
2. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw a man with a gun go all the way down Patton to Jefferson.
Thumb1:
Let us draw out the solution:
EVENT 1. A man with a gun, wearing a light-brown jacket, came onto Patton off Tenth, immediately crossed over to the west side and then went down an alley.
EVENT 2. A man with a gun, wearing a gray/white jacket, come onto Patton off Tenth, stayed on the east side and went all the way down to Jefferson.
Event 1 happened shortly before Event 2.
Multiple people saw Event 1.
Multiple other people saw Event 2.
Only one person saw both Event 1 and Event 2. His name was Mr. Ted Callaway. He started looking north on Patton shortly before Mr. Sam Guinyard did. By the time Mr. Guinyard came to look north on Patton, Event 1 had already taken place: the man in the light-brown jacket had disappeared down the alleyway.
Let us call the man with a gun seen in Event 1 Tan Jacket Man.
Let us call the man with a gun seen in Event 2 White Jacket Man
By the time White Jacket Man came onto Patton, Tan Jacket Man had already disappeared down the alley off Patton.
White Jacket Man had, from Tenth, seen Tan Jacket Man turn onto Patton. He went in the direction he had shortly before this seen him go. Not knowing, however, that Tan Jacket Man had turned off into the alley off Patton, White Jacket Man assumed incorrectly that Tan Jacket Man had gone straight down Patton for Jefferson. And so that's the way he went himself.
Because White Jacket Man was (as he thought) following in the path taken by Tan Jacket Man.
This makes new sense of the following moment:
Mr. BALL. What did he do when you hollered at him?
Mr. CALLAWAY. He slowed his pace, almost halted for a minute. And he said something to me, which I could not understand. And then kind of shrugged his shoulders, and kept on going.
White Jacket Man hadn't come from shooting Officer Tippit. He had come from seeing Tan Jacket Man shoot Officer Tippit.
-
So Bill would have us believe that the gunman got all the way down Patton and turned on Jefferson before Burt got to a place where he could look south on Patton, and then the gunman went over a block, cut through a parking lot, left a jacket under a car, and got back up to the alley all before Burt could go half a block down Patton to look down the alley. And this all happened and Burt still got back up to 10th before the ambulance arrived.
Yes, this is what Mr. Bill Brown actually believes. Because he's a) intensely invested emotionally in the official story b) tragically bereft of basic critical thinking skills.
-
White Jacket Man hadn't come from shooting Officer Tippit. He had come from seeing Tan Jacket Man shoot Officer Tippit.
But the gents down at Johnnie Reynolds motors----------Messrs. Reynolds, Patterson, Lewis & Russell-----------don't know that. They have heard shots in the distance to their north, and now they see a man with a gun who looks for all the world as though he's fleeing the scene. They jump to an understandable but erroneous conclusion: he's the shooter.
Mr. Reynolds (Warren) follows this man west on Jefferson and what does he see? He sees the man enter a second-hand furniture store (413 East Jefferson). Pretty soon, a bunch of cops will have made this store a focus of their search for the Tippit killer.
-
Now! Some three years ago, Mr. Dale Myers revealed a fascinating lead he had followed up after being contacted in Nov 2013 by the family of Mrs. Doretha Dean of Dean's Dairy Way, located very close to the furniture store.
Here, according to Mr. Myers, is what the late Mrs. Dean's family members told him:
A few minutes later [i.e. after hearing gunfire, A.F.], Mrs. Dean heard a loud banging on the door of the two-story house next door at 413 E. Jefferson Boulevard. She described it as someone “shaking and banging on the door as if they were ripping off the hinges of the screen door trying to get in.” She stated that the efforts she heard were “hard, fierce, and determined.” That caught her interest.
Immediately after hearing those sounds, she heard someone “running down the rickety stairs that led down from the second floor” of the second-hand store.
This caused her to look up and out the front window in an easterly direction toward the second-hand store. Just as she did, a young man rounded the corner walking briskly in a westerly direction. As he broke into a run, he was tugging at his jacket, as if to take it off.
Mrs. Dean later identified this man (to family members) as Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.
But what was the man doing at the furniture store, into which Mr. Reynolds had seen White Jacket Man run?
Mr. Myers reads all this as evidence that Mr. Oswald------------the shooter of Officer Tippit-------------was trying to hide.
But I think he's wrong. Read the description of what Mrs. Dean heard again, and you will I think see that it is actually far more suggestive of a man looking frantically for someone. First: the racket at the screen door. Second, and immediately after this, the noise of someone running DOWN stairs from the SECOND floor.
This was a chase, folks: White Jacket Man in pursuit of Tan Jacket Man.
And another thing Mrs. Dean told family members may contain a further crucial piece of information to help us piece together what really happened.
-
Yes, this is what Mr. Bill Brown actually believes. Because he's a) intensely invested emotionally in the official story b) tragically bereft of basic critical thinking skills.
The question is:....WHO killed J.D. Tippit ?? I don't know ....But I'm 100% certain that it was NOT Lee Oswald.
It appears that the killer was a professional hit man.
-
This was a chase, folks: White Jacket Man in pursuit of Tan Jacket Man.
And another thing Mrs. Dean told family members may contain a further crucial piece of information to help us piece together what really happened.
Mr. Myers was told that Mrs. Dean "stepped out of the store and peeped around the corner" after the man she had just seen. The man "had flung the jacket onto a tire rack of the Texaco station next door". Mrs. Dean "picked it up and came back into the store. Later when the police arrived, my mother turned the jacket over to them telling them she had found it on the tire rack".
Now Mr. Myers, who gives full credence to the earlier part of Mrs. Dean's story, is having none of this: Mrs. Dean simply couldn't have found the jacket, as the jacket was found under a car in the parking lot.
The jacket? Well, one of them anyway. But there is a possibility that Mr. Myers appears not to have considered: the jacket found by Mrs. Dean was not the same jacket as the jacket found under a car.
What's missing from the account is any mention of what color the jacket Mrs. Dean said she found was.
I believe that Tan Jacket Man may have discarded his jacket at the tire rack, and that it was his jacket that was found and brought into the Dean's Dairy Way store by Mrs. Dean. He had quietly slipped out of the furniture store just as White Jacket Man was entering it, and---------knowing he'd been pursued to this area----------needed to lose the jacket asap.
Recall this detail from the earlier part of Mrs. Dean's account, as quoted by Mr. Myers: "As he broke into a run, he was tugging at his jacket, as if to take it off." It would make sense that he did in fact take it off just moments after this, and discarded it on the spot.
I submit that Mr. Myers' dual policy of endorsing Mrs. Dean as a terrifically credible and important witness on one phase of her story, whilst dismissing her in effect as a deceptive fantasist on the other, is incoherent--------------and that my analysis of her WHOLE story is a lot more cogent.
Thumb1:
-
No, Bill. A citation includes information on how to locate the thing you’re citing.
So what if he did? He said he couldn’t identify that man.
As I already said, that doesn’t help you with regard to your “real witness” William Smith, does it?
Still conspicuously absent: your answer to the question of whether Davis, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard were “real witnesses” per your standard.
No, Bill. A citation includes information on how to locate the thing you’re citing.
The 1968 Burt interview with Chapman; as I already stated multiple times.
So what if he did? He said he couldn’t identify that man.
As I already said, that doesn’t help you with regard to your “real witness” William Smith, does it?
Correct, Burt said he could not identify the man. Burt did not say that the man was in fact not Oswald, as falsely claimed by Chapman when he summarized the interview with Burt.
Both Burt and Smith were REAL witnesses, yes. Unlike Clemons. It is faulty on your part to state that Clemons is as much a witness as Burt and Smith. Burt and Smith saw the officer's patrol car stopped and Smith saw Tippit fall. Clemons saw none of that.
Still conspicuously absent: your answer to the question of whether Davis, Davis, Callaway, and Guinyard were “real witnesses” per your standard.
Why do you keep bringing up Davis, Davis, Callaway and Guinyard? They're completely unrelated when it comes to your false claim that Clemons saw as much as witnesses like Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins.
-
So Bill would have us believe that the gunman got all the way down Patton and turned on Jefferson before Burt got to a place where he could look south on Patton, and then the gunman went over a block, cut through a parking lot, left a jacket under a car, and got back up to the alley all before Burt could go half a block down Patton to look down the alley. And this all happened and Burt still got back up to 10th before the ambulance arrived.
First of all, why are you saying the gunman went "over a block" after he turned from Patton onto Jefferson before cutting through the parking lot and hiding a jacket? Are you unaware of the layout of the land?
I do not believe Burt did all of that before the ambulance arrived. An elementary-level knowledge of the police tapes will tell you so. Listen to the tapes or read the transcripts and compare that to what Burt says about the library and the ambulance. Do I really have to spell this out for you? Burt also said policemen had began gathering at the scene when they returned to the scene after going halfway down Patton and the ambulance had yet to come. The tapes tell you this can't be true. I think you need to go listen to the tapes.
-
Yes, this is what Mr. Bill Brown actually believes. Because he's a) intensely invested emotionally in the official story b) tragically bereft of basic critical thinking skills.
No. That is not what I believe at all. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the police tapes would know better. You know you can read the transcripts for yourself, right?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/HG6DPhY.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/II9E3oh.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/azUJ68f.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sdDTMHC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hrn0q18.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/kXELKOF.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y3Iby7f.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tSGd8Ss.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/i0ahwIH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BmIyiiB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KfSqR7M.jpg)
-
Who found the jacket again? Is it confirmed by the person himself whom supposedly found the jacket under the car?
The jacket they claimed was found and is actually being carried by a DOD officer in a recorded camera view , appears to be WHITE.
It MAY be a light blue GRAY jacket which just seems to be white because the camera was recording it in black and white.
It seems improbable however , (imo) that a light blue gray jacket that’s so light tone that it could appear white in the camera clip could ever have been perceived by eye witness as a light brown or beige jacket.
IDK , however if there might be a possible effect of “meshing” the brown shirt and the light gray jacket together by some witnesses.
-
The 1968 Burt interview with Chapman; as I already stated multiple times.
What part of the word “locate” are you struggling with?
Correct, Burt said he could not identify the man. Burt did not say that the man was in fact not Oswald, as falsely claimed by Chapman when he summarized the interview with Burt.
Where does Chapman claim that? It’s not in the transcript you just posted.
Both Burt and Smith were REAL witnesses, yes. Unlike Clemons. It is faulty on your part to state that Clemons is as much a witness as Burt and Smith. Burt and Smith saw the officer's patrol car stopped and Smith saw Tippit fall. Clemons saw none of that.
When did Smith ever say he saw the officer’s patrol car stopped? And what makes you think Clemons didn’t see a stopped patrol car as well?
Why do you keep bringing up Davis, Davis, Callaway and Guinyard?
Isn’t it obvious? You’re arbitrarily defining “real witness” as seeing Tippit fall. You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.
They're completely unrelated when it comes to your false claim that Clemons saw as much as witnesses like Burt, Smith, Benavides, Markham and Scoggins.
Smith doesn’t say anything in his testimony about seeing anything before hearing the shots.
-
First of all, why are you saying the gunman went "over a block" after he turned from Patton onto Jefferson before cutting through the parking lot and hiding a jacket? Are you unaware of the layout of the land?
Crawford is a block over from Patton.
I do not believe Burt did all of that before the ambulance arrived.
Great, then I don’t believe he saw a guy walking down the street before hearing the shots. That was easy.
Cherry-picker.
An elementary-level knowledge of the police tapes will tell you so.
Bull. The police tapes tell you exactly nothing about what Burt did.
Listen to the tapes or read the transcripts and compare that to what Burt says about the library and the ambulance. Do I really have to spell this out for you? Burt also said policemen had began gathering at the scene when they returned to the scene after going halfway down Patton and the ambulance had yet to come. The tapes tell you this can't be true. I think you need to go listen to the tapes.
Funny, then why did Virginia Davis say that police were already there when she saw the policeman lying on the street?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/HG6DPhY.jpg)
[Etc. etc.]
Mr. Burt Dec '63:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wz1kyFfP/Jimmy-Earl-Burt-ALLEY-crop.png)
Mr. Smith Dec '63:
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNp2Z6kp/William-Arthur-Smith-12-Dec-63-marked.jpg)
From Mr. Smith's WC testimony-------------
Mr. BALL. And he ran in what direction?
Mr. SMITH. West.
Mr. BALL. Did you follow him?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you go down to where the policeman was shot?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
Is it possible that Messrs. Burt & Smith at some later point went a bit down Patton together, and saw something down the alley to the west? It's possible. But that wouldn't change the fact that Mr. Burt, like others, had already seen enough to destroy the story that the shooter went all the way down Patton to Jefferson.
Mr. Burt's 1968 account simply deletes this dangerous fact.
Mr. Smith was called to testify before the Warren Commission. Mr. Burt was not. Go figure.
-
It seems improbable however , (imo) that a light blue gray jacket that’s so light tone that it could appear white in the camera clip could ever have been perceived by eye witness as a light brown or beige jacket.
When the jacket was found under a car, it didn't occur to anyone to describe it as brown or tan. No, it was 'white' or 'gray'.
So:
It's not just Tan Jacket Man vs. White (or Gray) Jacket Man.
It's Tan Jacket Man Who Went Down Alley Off Patton + White (Gray) Jacket Man Who Went All the Way Down Patton To Jefferson.
Mr. Callaway, in his WC testimony, gives us a weird composite of both men--------both as to route down Patton and jacket color.
Unfortunately for Mr. Callaway, Mr. Guinyard contradicts him on both counts. AND Officer Howell Summers, after talking with Mr. Callaway, puts out the following jacket description: "a light gray Eisenhower-type jacket". No mention of 'tannish'.
I suspect Tan Jacket Man (the man who turned off into the alley) had put his gun in his jacket pocket by the time Mr. Callaway noticed him. This led Mr. Callaway afterwards to believe that the shooter must have been the second guy--------------the guy in the light gray jacket brandishing a gun. And so that's the man he told the Officer Summers about, leading Officer Summers to put out his suspect description.
And, as outlined in an earlier post, we have good reason to believe that the light gray jacket was not the only jacket to be found afterwards-------------Mrs. Doretha Dean found the other one, the tan one, which Tan Jacket Man had dumped on the tire rack as he tried to elude Gray Jacket Man.
Thumb1:
-
PRIME CANDIDATE FOR MAN IN LIGHT BROWN JACKET ENCOUNTERED BY OFFICER BAKER BY REAR STAIRS SEVERAL FLOORS UP IN TSBD:
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRZX8GYN/Tan-Jacket-Man-Oswald-200.jpg)
PRIME CANDIDATE FOR TAN JACKET MAN (=SHOOTER OF OFFICER TIPPIT):
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRZX8GYN/Tan-Jacket-Man-Oswald-200.jpg)
-
Mr. Domingo Benavides, WC Testimony:
"I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back."
(https://i.postimg.cc/7LqQgtKs/Tan-Jacket-long-davidson-frame-0001-hair.jpg)
-
PRIME CANDIDATE FOR TAN JACKET MAN (=SHOOTER OF OFFICER TIPPIT):
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRZX8GYN/Tan-Jacket-Man-Oswald-200.jpg)
Description of Officer Tippit's shooter given by Mr. William Smith to FBI 12/12/63:
"a white male, about 5' 7" to 5'8", 20 to 25 years of age, 150-160, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket and dark pants"
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pf9FrNqw/Tan-Jacket-Man-front.jpg)
The man above is easily confusable in a witness' memory with Mr. Oswald. Why, he even has the same tense clenched-lipped expression (or, as the Warren Gullibles would call it, 'smirk').................
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRZX8GYN/Tan-Jacket-Man-Oswald-200.jpg)
Thumb1:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/HG6DPhY.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/II9E3oh.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/azUJ68f.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sdDTMHC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/hrn0q18.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/kXELKOF.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y3Iby7f.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tSGd8Ss.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/i0ahwIH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BmIyiiB.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KfSqR7M.jpg)
Excellent post , Mr Brown.... Just the FACTS as Jimmy Burt witnessed them. Jimmy Burt obviously did not believe that Lee Oswald was the man who shot J.D. Tippit.
-
Hey, we will convince Mr. Brown he is with CT side before long , 😵💫
-
What part of the word “locate” are you struggling with?
Where does Chapman claim that? It’s not in the transcript you just posted.
When did Smith ever say he saw the officer’s patrol car stopped? And what makes you think Clemons didn’t see a stopped patrol car as well?
Isn’t it obvious? You’re arbitrarily defining “real witness” as seeing Tippit fall. You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.
Smith doesn’t say anything in his testimony about seeing anything before hearing the shots.
What part of the word “locate” are you struggling with?
You wanna keep on and on about this? Okay.
Again, I do not need to locate it for you in order to have provided the cite.
When did Smith ever say he saw the officer’s patrol car stopped? And what makes you think Clemons didn’t see a stopped patrol car as well?
Burt said he and Smith stood there in the front yard watching the officer and the man talk.
Clemons never said she saw the officer talking to the man.
Isn’t it obvious? You’re arbitrarily defining “real witness” as seeing Tippit fall. You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.
I stand by everything I've said. You've created a straw man argument since we're talking about who did and did not see the stopped patrol car and the officer talking to the man and you want to bring up witnesses who were around the corner.
Smith doesn’t say anything in his testimony about seeing anything before hearing the shots.
I haven't said Smith ever stated that he saw anything before hearing the shots.
-
Crawford is a block over from Patton.
Great, then I don’t believe he saw a guy walking down the street before hearing the shots. That was easy.
Cherry-picker.
Bull. The police tapes tell you exactly nothing about what Burt did.
Funny, then why did Virginia Davis say that police were already there when she saw the policeman lying on the street?
Crawford is a block over from Patton.
But at this point, the killer didn't go all the way to Crawford nor did he go over a block.
Great, then I don’t believe he saw a guy walking down the street before hearing the shots. That was easy.
But, the evidence (the police tapes) tells you that Burt is wrong when he mentions the timing of the arrival of ambulance. This is simple stuff if you'd just run off and listen to the tapes or read the transcripts.
-
The Mr. Jimmy Earl Burt who says in Dec 1963 that he saw the shooter turn off into the alley just after the shooting, and that he saw this from his vantage point at the intersection of Tenth and Patton, is saying something that Mr. Bill Brown doesn't like. Therefore he is an UNREAL witness.
However, the Mr. Jimmy Earl Burt who in 1968 doesn't mention his having seen the shooter turn off into the alley just after the shooting, from his vantage point at the intersection of Tenth and Patton, is not saying something that Mr. Bill Brown doesn't like. Therefore he is a REAL witness.
Now some would characterize this approach to evidence as shameless cherry-picking. Not me. I see it as an example of Mr. Bill Brown's rigorous and powerfully simple methodology for arriving at conclusions that will be palatable to Mr. Bill Brown.
-
But at this point, the killer didn't go all the way to Crawford nor did he go over a block.
But, the evidence (the police tapes) tells you that Burt is wrong when he mentions the timing of the arrival of ambulance. This is simple stuff if you'd just run off and listen to the tapes or read the transcripts.
the evidence (the police tapes)
A preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the police tapes can not be relied on as they do simply do not match with the actual sequence of events.
-
You wanna keep on and on about this? Okay.
Again, I do not need to locate it for you in order to have provided the cite.
Then you don’t understand what “cite” means.
Burt said he and Smith stood there in the front yard watching the officer and the man talk.
Hearsay. Burt can’t attest to what Smith saw.
I stand by everything I've said. You've created a straw man argument since we're talking about who did and did not see the stopped patrol car and the officer talking to the man and you want to bring up witnesses who were around the corner.
No, we’re talking about your contrived criteria for “real witness” that excludes witnesses that you rely on for your arguments. Why does it matter who saw a stopped police car? Clemons saw a stopped police car. Everyone who came by that afternoon after the shooting saw a stopped police car. The Davises weren’t “around the corner”.
I haven't said Smith ever stated that he saw anything before hearing the shots.
Then he never said he saw anything more than Clemons said she did.
-
But at this point, the killer didn't go all the way to Crawford nor did he go over a block.
“He was down almost to the next street”.
But, the evidence (the police tapes) tells you that Burt is wrong when he mentions the timing of the arrival of ambulance. This is simple stuff if you'd just run off and listen to the tapes or read the transcripts.
I have done both. The existing edited and spliced police recordings and the differently abridged versions of the transcripts tell you nothing about what Burt did and when.
-
Now some would characterize this approach to evidence as shameless cherry-picking. Not me. I see it as an example of Mr. Bill Brown's rigorous and powerfully simple methodology for arriving at conclusions that will be palatable to Mr. Bill Brown.
Thumb1:
Having it both ways, Bill Brown style:
- Earlene Roberts didn’t mention the police car honking until a week later, therefore it didn’t happen.
- Jimmy Burt told Al Chapman in 1968 that he saw Tippit talking to the man who was walking on the sidewalk, therefore it happened.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/HG6DPhY.jpg)
Burt said he saw the man walking west, away from Marsalis and toward Patton.
Markham said that the man she saw was walking east and had just crossed Patton when Tippit stopped him.
If both are true, and Oswald was indeed the killer, he would have had to walk a far greater distance from the roominghouse than the much shorter route that was timed by Gary Mack at around 11 minutes.
Considering that the 11 minutes estimate was already a narrow fit, I don't see how Oswald could have gotten to Marsalis, walk west down 10th street, past Patton and then turn around for Markham to see him. Also, as Markham was walking the one block distance from 9th to 10th street she must have had a clear view of the crossing between 10th and Patton, yet she somehow failed to see the man walk west and then return?
It just doesn't add up. Could Burt have seen another man?
-
Burt said he saw the man walking west, away from Marsalis and toward Patton.
Markham said that the man she saw was walking east and had just crossed Patton when Tippit stopped him.
If both are true, and Oswald was indeed the killer, he would have had to walk a far greater distance from the roominghouse than the much shorter route that was timed by Gary Mack at around 11 minutes.
Considering that the 11 minutes estimate was already a narrow fit, I don't see how Oswald could have gotten to Marsalis, walk west down 10th street, past Patton and then turn around for Markham to see him. Also, as Markham was walking the one block distance from 9th to 10th street she must have had a clear view of the crossing between 10th and Patton, yet she somehow failed to see the man walk west and then return?
It just doesn't add up. Could Burt have seen another man?
Could Mr. Burt have seen another man? This same question applies to the man Mr. Burt claims in 1968 he and Mr. Smith saw down the alley several minutes after the shooting.
Here's why. Mr. Smith in Dec. 63 said of his sighting of the shooter turning off Tenth onto Patton: "this was the last time he saw the individual".
Therefore, if Mr. Burt of 1968 hasn't just made up the later Burt-Smith sighting of a man down the alley several minutes after the assassination, then that second man cannot have been the same individual as the first man.
Mr. Bill Brown's solution to this problem will be predictably elegant: Smith@1963, like Burt@1963 but unlike Burt@1968, is not a REAL witness.
Thumb1:
-
Here's how Mr. Dale Myers 'solves' the problem of Ms. Acquilla Clemmons' recollection:
"Cimino’s account matches the time period during which Acquilla Clemmons claimed that a man was standing across the street from Tippit’s squad car. Was Mrs. Clemmons’ “accomplice” really Cimino? It seems likely, considering the timing of Frank Cimino’s actions and Clemmons’ distance from the scene."
Mr. Myers is being perfectly ridiculous here. Ms. Clemmons has a man with a gun by the Tippit car at the same time as the other man is standing across the street. But Mr. Cimino never even saw the gunman---------------Ms. Markham told him he had already fled down the alley off Patton by that time. Therefore he cannot have been the second man Ms. Clemmons is talking about.
-
Two inarguable statements:
1. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw the gunman go off into the alley off Patton.
2. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw the gunman go all the way down Patton to Jefferson.
How on earth can both of these things possibly be true?
They can't.
But change the wording ever so slightly, and the solution comes into view--------------------
1. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw a man with a gun go into the alley off Patton.
2. It is firmly established that multiple witnesses saw a man with a gun go all the way down Patton to Jefferson.
Thumb1:
Which brings us to a curiously insistent little motif in the key shooting eyewitness stories: partial and/or momentary blindness.
Mrs. Markham covers her eyes with her hands
Mr. Scoggins' view is obscured by a bush and then he scrambles to hide outside his cab
Mr. Benavides ducking down in his truck
Not a single person gets a continuous view of the unfolding events: Officer pulls over - officer talks to man - officer gets out of car - man shoots officer - man stands over officer - man flees the scene
Everywhere we look-------or rather: everywhere the witnesses look--------we get ellipses.
Look, for example, at the curiously ambiguous wording in Mr. Scoggins' 3/16/64 FBI interview report:
(https://i.postimg.cc/15s2RGv8/Scoggins-3-16-64.jpg)
It's almost as if Mr. Scoggins cannot quite state categorically that there weren't in fact TWO men rather than just one
-
And then there's this, from Mr. Scoggins' affidavit for the SS:
"As the man went by me it appeared that he was trotting. He proceeded a short distance south on Patterson towards Jefferson"
A little later:
"I saw a man using the radio in the police cruiser and a few seconds later he appeared in the street with a gun in his hand and said to me "let's go hunt him". We got in my cab and left. We proceeded north on Patton and possibly turned west on 10th. We cruised an area north of 10th street looking for the man I had seen, but we did not see him. When we left the intersection of 10th and Patton we did not go to Patton and Jefferson, but went in a northerly direction which would be opposite from the intersection of Patton and Jefferson streets."
Huh? A truly bizarre way to look for a man you have seen going south on Patterson towards Jefferson.
Fast forward to Mr. Scoggins' WC testimony:
Mr. BELIN. What route did you take as you drove over the neighborhood?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I couldn't tell you.
Mr. BELIN. You can't tell us the route you took over the neighborhood?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I was doing the driving and he was doing the directing.
Mr. BELIN. He directed you where to go?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Actually, I couldn't say where he was going.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
"All right." :D
-
Not wholly unrelated!:
Mr. BENAVIDES - And so Ted then got in the taxicab and the taxicab came to a halt and he asked me which way he went. I told him he went down Patton Street toward the office, and come to find out later Ted had already seen him go by there.
Mr. BELIN - Did Ted tell you later he had seen him go by?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes; then we had a colored porter that said he-had seen him go by.
Why did Mr. Callaway need to ask Mr. Benavides which way the shooter had gone?
What or who had Mr. Callaway really seen on Patton?
-
Why did Mr. Callaway need to ask Mr. Benavides which way the shooter had gone?
Right? Just like Brewer asking Postal if she sold that man a ticket. You can’t get a straight story out of anyone.
-
I’d like to believe the reason for some of these people seemingly embellishing their story was that they were so distraught about the event that they rationalized that Oswald MIGHT be the man or were convinced he was PROBABLY the man and they wanted immediate retribution and a resolution.
It’s a kind of reaction that is understandable, the people feeling helpless and horrified by the alternative, which is a conspiracy, which is MUCH MORE disconcerting and difficult to deal with.
-
I’d like to believe the reason for some of these people seemingly embellishing their story was that they were so distraught about the event that they rationalized that Oswald MIGHT be the man or were convinced he was PROBABLY the man and they wanted immediate retribution and a resolution.
It’s a kind of reaction that is understandable, the people feeling helpless and horrified by the alternative, which is a conspiracy, which is MUCH MORE disconcerting and difficult to deal with.
BINGO!!.... Give that man a cigar! You're Hammering the nail squarely on the head Mr. Mason.
-
Thanks Walt. All we are trying to do here is figure out what the truth is because what has been presented as evidence is definitively flawed and a lot of it really would not be allowed as evidence because of chain of custody problems.
So we are still trying to answer Mr Myttons question how did the MC rifle get to the 6th floor?
That’s a question we just do not have enough evidence to answer definitively.
All we have basically is that Oswald most likely could NOT have planted that rifle AFTER the shooting as even if he could just toss the rifle into the gap between the 2 rows of boxes, it takes too long and he can never get to the second floor landing by 75 sec post shots or even 85 secs post shots.
But there IS the fact that there was NO evidence presented by the WC that definitely PROVES that that MC was actually fired THAT day of Nov 22/63.
Expended Shells found and picked up by Fritz and tossed back down again , do not prove much at all and introduce immediate reasonable doubt from the very start.
If they had documented having noticed the odor of gunpowder and found gunpowder residue in the rifle groove, breech and magazine well , THEN MAYBE there could be made a conclusion that the rifle had been recently fired.
I’m STILL uncertain if any layer of fine oxidation was found in the barrel grooves because they focused on the use of the word “corrosion” and then directed attention to the pitting found in the barrel which is of course one TYPE of corrosion which would not be removed by recently fired projectiles.
I’m not sure if here’s any actual statement declaring they did NOT find a layer of fine oxidation in the barrel grooves, however, which if such fine layer was there, would definitely prove the 3 shells at the SN widow could not have been fired thru that rifle, since fine layers of oxidation ARE removed when just ONE bullet is fired thru the barrel.
-
I’d like to believe the reason for some of these people seemingly embellishing their story was that they were so distraught about the event that they rationalized that Oswald MIGHT be the man or were convinced he was PROBABLY the man and they wanted immediate retribution and a resolution.
It’s a kind of reaction that is understandable, the people feeling helpless and horrified by the alternative, which is a conspiracy, which is MUCH MORE disconcerting and difficult to deal with.
Or the man they saw was Oswald. Don't you think these people would be concerned with identifying the wrong person and sending him to prison or the electric chair? That seems like the bigger concern than just wanting to convict anyone for the crime because they were distraught and wanted resolution.
-
Or the man they saw was Oswald. Don't you think these people would be concerned with identifying the wrong person and sending him to prison or the electric chair? That seems like the bigger concern than just wanting to convict anyone for the crime because they were distraught and wanted resolution.
Don't you think these people would be concerned with identifying the wrong person and sending him to prison or the electric chair?
Nope. It happened (and still does happen) all the time.
How else do you explain the large number of people who were later exonerated because of the ongoing work of the innocence project and others?
-
Or the man they saw was Oswald. Don't you think these people would be concerned with identifying the wrong person and sending him to prison or the electric chair? That seems like the bigger concern than just wanting to convict anyone for the crime because they were distraught and wanted resolution.
Mr. CALLAWAY. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him."
Ever wonder why Helen Markharm was crying hysterically as the cops were screaming at her to make her choice at the 1st line up
A blonde guy in a sport coat, another guy in a suit vest and a third in a button down sweater. Oh yea, Lee in a ragged t-shirt, w/ bruises on his face.
Who will she not choose?
-
Don't you think these people would be concerned with identifying the wrong person and sending him to prison or the electric chair?
Nope. It happened (and still does happen) all the time.
How else do you explain the large number of people who were later exonerated because of the ongoing work of the innocence project and others?
Can eyewitness testimony ever be wrong says the contrarian! Yes. What are the odds, however, that multiple witnesses are wrong? That Oswald would have a gun in his possession at the movie theatre? That he would have the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit? That he would draw his gun and engage in a fight with the police before even learning what they wanted? That he would be acting so suspiciously as to draw the attention of random citizens? Verdict = Guilty. Here is where the contrarian tells me all this evidence is an "assumption" but that he is not suggesting a conspiracy. Just that everyone was lying to implicate Oswald for no apparent reason.
-
Can eyewitness testimony ever be wrong says the contrarian! Yes. What are the odds, however, that multiple witnesses are wrong? That Oswald would have a gun in his possession at the movie theatre? That he would have the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit? That he would draw his gun and engage in a fight with the police before even learning what they wanted? That he would be acting so suspiciously as to draw the attention of random citizens? Verdict = Guilty. Here is where the contrarian tells me all this evidence is an "assumption" but that he is not suggesting a conspiracy. Just that everyone was lying to implicate Oswald for no apparent reason.
Can eyewitness testimony ever be wrong says the contrarian! Yes.
So we agree on that. That's progress
What are the odds, however, that multiple witnesses are wrong?
Wrong question. What are the odds that all witnesses identify the same person in a correctly conducted line up? That should be the question. There is no way that every single witness is able to identify the same person. Case in point; Scoggins "identified" Oswald in the DPD line up but was unable to identify him from a picture to the FBI the very next day.
That Oswald would have a gun in his possession at the movie theatre?
Did he? Says who?
That he would have the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit?
Which they only "found" on the third time they searched him...... :D
That he would draw his gun and engage in a fight with the police before even learning what they wanted?
Did he? Says who?
That he would be acting so suspiciously as to draw the attention of random citizens?
Yeah, pretty stupid to draw attention to yourself, if you actually just killed two people, right? The only thing missing is a flashing neon sign saying "here I am, come and get me"....
Verdict = Guilty.
Says the self-appointed jury, judge and executioner.....
Here is where the contrarian tells me all this evidence is an "assumption"
What evidence? All this is, is complete and utter BS from a propagandist who hasn't got any evidence.
Just that everyone was lying to implicate Oswald for no apparent reason.
Lying about what?
You're all over the place. Get a grip, man and present something with substance.
-
What are the odds that “Richard” will rattle off a list of claims that he cannot substantiate, and state them as facts?
100%
“Contrarian” is whiny-LN-speak for “waah, stop asking me to provide evidence for my claims”.
-
That he would have the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit?
Which they only "found" on the third time they searched him...... :D
And when they did, they only found one brand of ammo. “Richard” is wrong again.
-
Can eyewitness testimony ever be wrong says the contrarian! Yes.
So we agree on that. That's progress
What are the odds, however, that multiple witnesses are wrong?
Wrong question. What are the odds that all witnesses identify the same person in a correctly conducted line up? That should be the question. There is no way that every single witness is able to identify the same person. Case in point; Scoggins "identified" Oswald in the DPD line up but was unable to identify him from a picture to the FBI the very next day.
That Oswald would have a gun in his possession at the movie theatre?
Did he? Says who?
That he would have the same two brands of ammo used to kill Tippit?
Which they only "found" on the third time they searched him...... :D
That he would draw his gun and engage in a fight with the police before even learning what they wanted?
Did he? Says who?
That he would be acting so suspiciously as to draw the attention of random citizens?
Yeah, pretty stupid to draw attention to yourself, if you actually just killed two people, right? The only thing missing is a flashing neon sign saying "here I am, come and get me"....
Verdict = Guilty.
Says the self-appointed jury, judge and executioner.....
Here is where the contrarian tells me all this evidence is an "assumption"
What evidence? All this is, is complete and utter BS from a propagandist who hasn't got any evidence.
Just that everyone was lying to implicate Oswald for no apparent reason.
Lying about what?
You're all over the place. Get a grip, man and present something with substance.
"Lying about what?" The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT. Were they "lying about that"? The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit. Were the "lying about that"? The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT. Were all these folks "lying about that"? Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously? Was he "lying about that?" Does that help?
-
"Lying about what?" The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT. Were they "lying about that"? The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit. Were the "lying about that"? The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT. Were all these folks "lying about that"? Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously? Was he "lying about that?" Does that help?
The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT. Were they "lying about that"?
I don't know. Were they?
The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit. Were the "lying about that"?
If that's what they confirmed, then, yes they were lying, because they only found one brand of ammo on Oswald during the third search.
The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT. Were all these folks "lying about that"?
Not sure why you keep using the word "indicate" but, as far as I know, nobody actually saw Oswald trying to pull his gun. So, if you mean by "indicate" that they are claiming they actually saw Oswald trying to pull a gun, the answer again is; yes, they were lying.
Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously? Was he "lying about that?"
I don't know. I wasn't there, but I do know that Brewer lied about hearing a description on the radio, when no such broadcast was ever made.
Does that help?
Not really... It's just another version of the same old "cop said so, so it must be true" BS
-
The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit. Were the "lying about that"? The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT. Were all these folks "lying about that"?
No, but you are.
-
The DPD indicates that Oswald had a gun in the TT. Were they "lying about that"?
I don't know. Were they?
The DPD confirms that they searched Oswald and discovered the same two brands of ammo on his person that were used to kill Tippit. Were the "lying about that"?
If that's what they confirmed, then, yes they were lying, because they only found one brand of ammo on Oswald during the third search.
The DPD and witnesses in the TT indicate that Oswald tried to pull his gun and engaged in a struggle when approached in the TT. Were all these folks "lying about that"?
Not sure why you keep using the word "indicate" but, as far as I know, nobody actually saw Oswald trying to pull his gun. So, if you mean by "indicate" that they are claiming they actually saw Oswald trying to pull a gun, the answer again is; yes, they were lying.
Brewer indicated that Oswald drew his attention by acting suspiciously? Was he "lying about that?"
I don't know. I wasn't there, but I do know that Brewer lied about hearing a description on the radio, when no such broadcast was ever made.
Does that help?
Not really... It's just another version of the same old "cop said so, so it must be true" BS
So you "don't know" because you weren't there? Confirming the impossible standard of proof that requires a time machine to prove any fact that you do not want to accept. The same tired, dishonest contrarian approach. Numerous people "were there." They provided their sworn testimony as to what they saw. This is not just a case of one person possibly being mistaken. Many of these events were observed by a multitude of individuals. They would all have to be wrong or lying. But you are not alleging a conspiracy? Right? Just that you don't know because it's possible all these people lied, were mistaken, or acting in ways that can't be explained (e.g. lying about what they heard on the radio). We would need to be there to confirm what happened. Thus, no fact in human history could be confirmed unless we were individually present at the event.
-
So you "don't know" because you weren't there? Confirming the impossible standard of proof that requires a time machine to prove any fact that you do not want to accept.
No, “Richard”, it’s a standard that requires claims to be substantiated, not just accepted on faith. A standard that you yourself require for things like “Landis said so”.
-
No, “Richard”, it’s a standard that requires claims to be substantiated, not just accepted on faith. A standard that you yourself require for things like “Landis said so”.
No, “Richard”, it’s a standard that requires claims to be substantiated, not just accepted on faith.
He will never ever understand that, John....
He simply doesn't get that random members of a jury in any criminal case were also not at the scene when the crime happened. It's the job of the prosecutor to convince them of somebody's guilt and he needs to do it by presenting credible authentic evidence.
-
So you "don't know" because you weren't there? Confirming the impossible standard of proof that requires a time machine to prove any fact that you do not want to accept. The same tired, dishonest contrarian approach. Numerous people "were there." They provided their sworn testimony as to what they saw. This is not just a case of one person possibly being mistaken. Many of these events were observed by a multitude of individuals. They would all have to be wrong or lying. But you are not alleging a conspiracy? Right? Just that you don't know because it's possible all these people lied, were mistaken, or acting in ways that can't be explained (e.g. lying about what they heard on the radio). We would need to be there to confirm what happened. Thus, no fact in human history could be confirmed unless we were individually present at the event.
So you "don't know" because you weren't there?
Indeed. And you were not there either, so what makes you think you know? "Cop said so", right?
The same tired, dishonest contrarian approach.
So, now "Richard" goes off the deep end completely! Asking for credible authentic evidence is "the same tired, dishonest contrarian approach? Hilarious.... It seems in "Richard"'s world, you don't need evidence and if there is some nevertheless, only those parts of the evidence that point to guilt are credible for "Richard". Everything else is dismissed out of hand.... Completely delusional!
Numerous people "were there." They provided their sworn testimony as to what they saw.
So what? You previously claimed that they saw Oswald "trying to pull his gun". Name me one witness who actually said he saw that?
This is not just a case of one person possibly being mistaken. Many of these events were observed by a multitude of individuals. They would all have to be wrong or lying.
ad populum fallacy!
Just that you don't know because it's possible all these people lied, were mistaken, or acting in ways that can't be explained (e.g. lying about what they heard on the radio).
Of course it is possible that "all these people" lied, but IMO it's far more likely they were mistaken and/or simply embellished their story. One thing is for sure, we know that Brewer lied about hearing a description on the radio, because none was broadcast at the time he claimed he heard it. We also know that McDonald has been loose and free with the truth. And, more importantly, we know that eyewitness testimony is the weakest and most dubious evidence there is.
We would need to be there to confirm what happened. Thus, no fact in human history could be confirmed unless we were individually present at the event.
Utter BS, but it seems that's all you've got
-
If Earlene Roberts saw a dark blue jacket being “zipped” on Oswald as he exited then unless Oswald was wearing the light gray jacket too , underneath of that blue jacket, then Oswald could not have shot Tippit.
But if Oswald was wearing both the dark blue jacket and the light gray jacket then would not the blue jacket have been found discarded somewhere also along the alleged route Oswald took from leaving 10th and Patton to the Texas theater , ( or even the theater itself) thus the blue jacket would never have been found the Domino room?
Since it’s seems a rather low probability that such a light gray jacket could ever appear so dark as the dark blue jacket to Earlene Roberts, and since there’s not a suitable explanation for how the Blue jacket would wind up in the Domino room if Oswald was wearing both jackets, then there seems left only 4 options:
1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a dark blue jacket and Oswald was not wearing the light gray jacket underneath.
2. Roberts saw Oswald in his darker brown shirt on as he went out and mistook him buttoning it up as “zipping”
3. Roberts was colorblind , the lights were off inside the house and there wasn’t enough sunlight streaming so the light gray jacket appeared as dark blue to Roberts.
4. Roberts was looney and prone to exaggeration and outright fabrication of false narratives.
Imo no.1 is more probable than the other options.
-
If Earlene Roberts saw a dark blue jacket being “zipped” on Oswald as he exited then unless Oswald was wearing the light gray jacket too , underneath of that blue jacket, then Oswald could not have shot Tippit.
But if Oswald was wearing both the dark blue jacket and the light gray jacket then would not the blue jacket have been found discarded somewhere also along the alleged route Oswald took from leaving 10th and Patton to the Texas theater , ( or even the theater itself) thus the blue jacket would never have been found the Domino room?
Since it’s seems a rather low probability that such a light gray jacket could ever appear so dark as the dark blue jacket to Earlene Roberts, and since there’s not a suitable explanation for how the Blue jacket would wind up in the Domino room if Oswald was wearing both jackets, then there seems left only 4 options:
1. Earlene Roberts saw Oswald zipping up a dark blue jacket and Oswald was not wearing the light gray jacket underneath.
2. Roberts saw Oswald in his darker brown shirt on as he went out and mistook him buttoning it up as “zipping”
3. Roberts was colorblind , the lights were off inside the house and there wasn’t enough sunlight streaming so the light gray jacket appeared as dark blue to Roberts.
4. Roberts was looney and prone to exaggeration and outright fabrication of false narratives.
Imo no.1 is more probable than the other options.
Regardless of the color, Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket. Right?
Why did Oswald ditch this jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
-
Regardless of the color, Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket. Right?
Why did Oswald ditch this jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
Regardless of the color, Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket. Right?
Did he? What evidence do you have for this, beyond "Roberts said so" and how can you be sure that what she said is actually correct?
Roberts was paying attention to the television, had her back turned to the room and only saw Oswald for a couple of seconds as he left the building.
In addition, Robert was not able to correctly describe any other piece of clothing Oswald was wearing as he entered and/or left.
-
And even if Roberts and Brewer were both correct, that still doesn’t mean that the jacket was “ditched”.
-
@Bill Brown:
Yes it’s basically a choice if Roberts saw a dark blue jacket being zipped or did Roberts see a dark brown shirt being buttoned up.
Since the Dark blue jacket was found in the Domino room then Oswald cannot have been wearing it when he was seen by Whaley and Oswald cannot have been wearing it when he entered the boarding house either.
Unless there is a 3rd unaccounted for jacket that’s kind of light gray and wool/flannel, then what BW Frazier saw Oswald wearing on Nov 22/63 must be the light gray jacket.
And Whaley therefore must have seen only the light gray jacket and was a bit too over anxious to lhelp that he decided he saw 2 jackets.
And when Oswald entered the boarding house, he perhaps had on the light gray jacket unzipped and open which Earlene Roberts mistook as a light colored long sleeve shirt.
And when Oswald left his room again, he must have taken off his light gray jacket leaving it in the room and went out the house just wearing his dark brown shirt, since it’s difficult to understand how Roberts would have seen that a light gray almost white jacket as a dark blue jacket.
So as weird as it may seem, the probability may be greater that Roberts DID mistake the action of buttoned up the brown shirt as “zipping up “
a dark blue shirt.
It would be interesting to know if in fact Roberts was color blind because colorblind people often mistake brown and dark blue.
So to answer Mr.Brown, I’d have to say it’s not exactly a slam dunk that Roberts saw EITHER jacket being zipped up.
-
If Oswald left the boarding room wearing only his brown shirt , and thus there was no discarding a jacket, the question remaining is if Brewer saw Oswald as late as 1:30 or could Brewer have seen Oswald earlier at about 1:16-1:17 pm?
Burroughs has another statement in which he has 1:15 pm the time seeing Oswald in the theater.
That’s still not quite enough time for Oswald to walk to Brewers store first , take a look at some shoes and then be in the theater by 1:15 if Oswald left the house at 1:04pm
So the alternative is Oswald walking to theater first and entering by 1:15 which is an 11 minutes walk from the house, which is more probable.
Entering the theater after paying for a ticket maybe Oswald saw the movie hadn’t started yet so he went back out and across the street to look at some shoes in Brewers store for a few minutes.
Oswald was seen by Brewer in just his brown shirt. Maybe Brewer misinterpreted Oswald leaving the store only after a police car went by as Oswald acting suspiciously.
Watching Oswald go back into the theater bypassing the ticket booth was misinterpreted by Brewer as Oswald not paying and trying to “hide” in the theatre.
Oswald having already paid earlier and having a ticket stub, did not have to stop at the ticket booth.
Oswald returns by 1:19 and for the the next minute is seen by Jack Davis moving around to various seats at 1:20 pm.
-
If Oswald left the boarding room wearing only his brown shirt , and thus there was no discarding a jacket, the question remaining is if Brewer saw Oswald as late as 1:30 or could Brewer have seen Oswald earlier at about 1:16-1:17 pm?
Burroughs has another statement in which he has 1:15 pm the time seeing Oswald in the theater.
That’s still not quite enough time for Oswald to walk to Brewers store first , take a look at some shoes and then be in the theater by 1:15 if Oswald left the house at 1:04pm
So the alternative is Oswald walking to theater first and entering by 1:15 which is an 11 minutes walk from the house, which is more probable.
Entering the theater after paying for a ticket maybe Oswald saw the movie hadn’t started yet so he went back out and across the street to look at some shoes in Brewers store for a few minutes.
Oswald was seen by Brewer in just his brown shirt. Maybe Brewer misinterpreted Oswald leaving the store only after a police car went by as Oswald acting suspiciously.
Watching Oswald go back into the theater bypassing the ticket booth was misinterpreted by Brewer as Oswald not paying and trying to “hide” in the theatre.
Oswald having already paid earlier and having a ticket stub, did not have to stop at the ticket booth.
Oswald returns by 1:19 and for the the next minute is seen by Jack Davis moving around to various seats at 1:20 pm.
Is there any way of making this kind of scenario work if we simply push the time of the Brewer shoe store sighting back to the original ~1:35 pm?
Thus: Mr. Oswald goes to TT (purchasing a ticket) quite a ways before that time. He tries to find his contact. No success. His anxiety rising, he exits the cinema (perhaps to look for a phone?). Cop-car activity alarms him--so he ducks into the shoe store lobby and slips back into the TT. He's only been gone a minute or so. When he's arrested, Mrs. Postal recognizes him as someone who bought a ticket well before the Brewer sighting: she is mystified.
Given the early timestamps which Messrs. Burroughs & Davis put on Mr. Oswald's presence in the cinema, there seems no other way of making Mr. Oswald the man seen by Mr. Brewer
-
Friends, researcher Mr. Michael Kalin has been drawing attention to an interesting thing about Mr. Bill Brown's guru, Mr. Dale Myers.
In With Malice, Mr. Myers gives us the following:
[QUOTE ON]
In 1983, Jack Tatum provided this account of the final moments of Tippit’s death:
“The man acted as if he was going to leave, and hesitated, and went back around behind the squad car, back up toward the front, where the officer was laying. He didn’t walk back, he hurried back, and cautiously approached him, and then shot him again — in the head. I’d say it was six seconds — not more than ten seconds, I don’t think, between the initial gunshots and when he shot him the second time. After shooting the officer in the head, the man hesitated — he stopped, and looked around briefly, looked toward the lady up there on the corner, Mrs. Markham — and looked up in my direction. And I was right there, right past the intersection, and it was only about a half a block — and he started a slow trot, or kind of a hurried run, in my direction. I thought he was coming after me, so I put my car in gear and moved forward, away from the gunman.”
[QUOTE OFF]
In 2018 Mr. Myers offered an eyebrow-raising 'clarification' on his blog (italics & underscore added by me):
'The paraphrased quote attributed to Tatum in my book, "With Malice" [page 71 (1998 Edition) and page 123 (2013 Edition)] is inaccurate, having survived an early draft of the book in which John Moriarty's speculation about the Tippit head wound influenced my rendering of Tatum's comments about the same. The phrase " - in the head" should have been in brackets or outside the quotation, as it was a qualifier to what Tatum actually said. Same for the phrase: "After shooting the officer in the head..."'
So-------------------the quotation should have read as follows:
“The man acted as if he was going to leave, and hesitated, and went back around behind the squad car, back up toward the front, where the officer was laying. He didn’t walk back, he hurried back, and cautiously approached him, and then shot him again — in the head. I’d say it was six seconds — not more than ten seconds, I don’t think, between the initial gunshots and when he shot him the second time. After shooting the officer in the head, the man hesitated — he stopped, and looked around briefly, looked toward the lady up there on the corner, Mrs. Markham — and looked up in my direction. And I was right there, right past the intersection, and it was only about a half a block — and he started a slow trot, or kind of a hurried run, in my direction. I thought he was coming after me, so I put my car in gear and moved forward, away from the gunman.”
So let's get this straight. Mr. Myers saw fit to offer his own 'rendering' (i.e. CHANGED VERSION) of a direct quotation from a witness in order to insert his own latest belief into the witness' mouth. And now he's taking this alien element out because it no longer suits his propagandistic Warren Gullible agenda.
Friendly advice: be VERY careful in handling any report from Mr. Myers of his interview with a witness, unless and until he releases audio of that interview. By his own confession, he has form in the department of improving on what they say. And the lord alone knows how many times he has applied this system in the other direction: NOT including inconvenient things they HAVE told him. There's never not an agenda here.
Like I say, this guy is guru to our own Mr. Bill Brown!
-
But Witherspoon did not live on Tenth Street. In fact, she lived nowhere near the vicinity of Tenth and Patton. Not even close.
According to the 1964 Polk's Dallas City Directory, Witherspoon lived in the 2500 block of South Tyler, over thirty blocks from Tenth and Patton. Also, Witherspoon confirmed this in a 1983 interview with author Dale Myers.
https://ia800908.us.archive.org/28/items/nsia-PerryDave/nsia-PerryDave/Perry%20David%20B%2075.pdf
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53196185534_75d50134d2_k.jpg)
With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J. D. Tippit
By Dale K. Myers (https://books.google.com/books?id=IdnhAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT121&lpg=PT121&dq=%22one+additional+detail+surfaced+recently%22+tippit&source=bl&ots=ePLseT4gY7&sig=ACfU3U00feDOUgIjnNRope2sJ21i-vXKMg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwig6d-QurSBAxUPmmoFHYbXCcoQ6AF6BAgKEAM#v=onepage&q=%22one%20additional%20detail%20surfaced%20recently%22%20tippit&f=false)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53196622315_cd0cfa405c_b.jpg)
-
From With Malice:
"Tippit's relationship with the waitress came to a sudden end in September 1963, when the woman quit her job at Austin's Barbecue and resumed living with her ex-husband."
Hmm......................................
-
From With Malice:
"Tippit's relationship with the waitress came to a sudden end in September 1963, when the woman quit her job at Austin's Barbecue and resumed living with her ex-husband."
Hmm......................................
In June 1964, said waitress gives birth to a baby.
June 1964: nine months after September 1963.
-
In June 1964, said waitress gives birth to a baby.
June 1964: nine months after September 1963.
Also from the document to which Mr. Scully linked:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nhSyMP68/Witherspoon-Perry.jpg)
[Witherspoon = Mrs. Johnnie Maxie Witherspoon, waitress, who told HSCA she had an affair with Officer Tippit 1961-63]
-
Zeon Mason, John Iacoletti and Martin Weidmann...
The three of you are in denial. The only person on earth who was present when Oswald left the rooming house said he was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
If I were an Oswald defender at any cost, I'd deny this fact, too, because I know what it means; that Oswald ditched the jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
"He got a jacket and put it on; it was kind of a zipper jacket. He was zipping it up as he went out the door." -- Earlene Roberts (Warren Commission testimony)
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
-
The only person on earth who was present when Oswald left the rooming house said he was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
If I were an Oswald defender at any cost, I'd deny this fact, too, because I know what it means; that Oswald ditched the jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
'The only person on earth who was present when Oswald left the rooming house said he was zipping up a dark jacket as he went out the door.
'If I were an Oswald accuser at any cost, I'd deny this fact, too, because I know what it means; that the jacket wasn't the one allegedly found in the parking lot. Oswald must have worn his dark jacket into the Texas Theatre and taken it off in there.'
-
Is there any way of making this kind of scenario work if we simply push the time of the Brewer shoe store sighting back to the original ~1:35 pm?
Thus: Mr. Oswald goes to TT (purchasing a ticket) quite a ways before that time. He tries to find his contact. No success. His anxiety rising, he exits the cinema (perhaps to look for a phone?). Cop-car activity alarms him--so he ducks into the shoe store lobby and slips back into the TT. He's only been gone a minute or so. When he's arrested, Mrs. Postal recognizes him as someone who bought a ticket well before the Brewer sighting: she is mystified.
Given the early timestamps which Messrs. Burroughs & Davis put on Mr. Oswald's presence in the cinema, there seems no other way of making Mr. Oswald the man seen by Mr. Brewer
In 1963, Mr. Jones Harris (a friend of Mrs. Kennedy's press secretary Mrs. Pamela Turnure) spoke with Mrs. Postal in Dallas. When he asked her if she had sold Mr. Oswald a ticket, she burst into tears and left the room. When he shortly thereafter asked her a second time, she---------------burst into tears and left the room
-
Apparently the very first public telling of the Brewer story is on 27 Nov, when Mr. Brewer spoke with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0QNJZvCp/Brewer-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-11-27-brewer.jpg)
From the same report:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vB7mwNH0/Brewer-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-11-27-p2.jpg)
-
Zeon Mason, John Iacoletti and Martin Weidmann...
The three of you are in denial. The only person on earth who was present when Oswald left the rooming house said he was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
If I were an Oswald defender at any cost, I'd deny this fact, too, because I know what it means; that Oswald ditched the jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
"He got a jacket and put it on; it was kind of a zipper jacket. He was zipping it up as he went out the door." -- Earlene Roberts (Warren Commission testimony)
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
The three of you are in denial.
Says the fanatical zealot..... Hilarious!
The only person on earth who was present when Oswald left the rooming house said he was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
And the single fact that Roberts was the only person present suddenly makes her a reliable witness?
If I were an Oswald defender at any cost, I'd deny this fact, too, because I know what it means; that Oswald ditched the jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
First if all, it isn't a fact, just because you call it that. And secondly, if I were an Oswald accuser, I'd claim Roberts was correct, too, because without her the entire LN narrative goes out the window....
"He got a jacket and put it on; it was kind of a zipper jacket. He was zipping it up as he went out the door." -- Earlene Roberts (Warren Commission testimony)
"He was zipping it up", so it was "kind of a zipper jacket".... HAHAHAHAHAHA
Roberts could only have seen Oswald put on a light grey jacket if that jacket was indeed at the roominghouse, but Frazier saw Oswald wear a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening. So, if Roberts is correct, how did the grey jacket get from Irving to Oak Cliff or alternatively, what happened to the jacket Frazier saw Oswald wearing?
-
Bill’s argument is particularly ridiculous because even if he could prove that Oswald intentionally ditched a jacket (and he cannot), that tells you exactly nothing about who killed anybody.
-
Bill’s argument is particularly ridiculous because even if he could prove that Oswald intentionally ditched a jacket (and he cannot), that tells you exactly nothing about who killed anybody.
Didn't Mrs Roberts say the Mr Lee was zipping up a Dark colored Jacket?
-
Didn't Mrs Roberts say the Mr Lee was zipping up a Dark colored Jacket?
Sshhh, Mr. Cakebread, Mr. Bill Brown doesn't like us talking about that
-
Didn't Mrs Roberts say the Mr Lee was zipping up a Dark colored Jacket?
Yes, but that's only a secondary problem. According to Marina, Lee had only two jackets; a blue-gray one and a light gray one. According to Frazier, Oswald was wearing a light gray jacket to Irving on Thursday evening and we know (at least we are told) that the blue-gray jacket was found after the assassination at the TSBD. If we accept that the blue-gray jacket was indeed left behind at the TSBD by Lee, than it stands to reason that this must be the jacket he was wearing on Friday morning. This in turn, if Frazier is correct, means that the light gray jacket must have been left behind in Irving. This again means that there is no way that Oswald could have put on either of his jackets in the roominghouse, simply because they were not there.
And that makes the question of just how dark the jacket was moot, because Roberts (who was paying very little attention) could not have seen Lee zipping up any kind of jacket. However, the "dark colored" issue (which she mentioned in her WC testimony) could mean that she really saw the dark colored shirt Lee was wearing as he was arrested.
-
Yes, but that's only a secondary problem. According to Marina, Lee had only two jackets; a blue-gray one and a light gray one. According to Frazier, Oswald was wearing a light gray jacket to Irving on Thursday evening and we know (at least we are told) that the blue-gray jacket was found after the assassination at the TSBD. If we accept that the blue-gray jacket was indeed left behind at the TSBD by Lee, than it stands to reason that this must be the jacket he was wearing on Friday morning. This in turn, if Frazier is correct, means that the light gray jacket must have been left behind in Irving. This again means that there is no way that Oswald could have put on either of his jackets in the roominghouse, simply because they were not there.
And that makes the question of just how dark the jacket was moot, because Roberts (who was paying very little attention) could not have seen Lee zipping up any kind of jacket. However, the "dark colored" issue (which she mentioned in her WC testimony) could mean that she really saw the dark colored shirt Lee was wearing as he was arrested.
Indeed, Mr. Weidmann, but there is another possibility, which Mr. Greg Doudna has put forward: Mrs. Roberts correctly perceived/remembered the blue-gray jacket as 'dark' but misperceived/misremembered it as just 'gray'. Mr. Oswald had this dark blue-gray jacket on when he went into the Texas Theatre. He took it off inside, and the 'investigating' authorities later engineered its 'discovery' in the TSBD. The Tippit fairytale (LHO shoots Tippit--LHO flees down Patton--LHO discards jacket in parking lot) needed folks to believe that Mr. Oswald was wearing CE162 as he left the rooming-house.
What would support this scenario is the anomaly of Mr. Frazier clearly recalling that Mr. Oswald had his gray flannel-looking jacket on that morning. If he's right, and if the blue-gray jacket really was found (without shenanigans) by Mr. Frankie Kaiser several days later in the TSBD, then we have Mr. Oswald leaving his jacket behind in the domino room when he left work on some day prior to 11/22. Which is, well, a little odd.............
-
Indeed, Mr. Weidmann, but there is another possibility, which Mr. Greg Doudna has put forward: Mrs. Roberts correctly perceived/remembered the blue-gray jacket as 'dark' but misperceived/misremembered it as just 'gray'. Mr. Oswald had this dark blue-gray jacket on when he went into the Texas Theatre. He took it off inside, and the 'investigating' authorities later engineered its 'discovery' in the TSBD. The Tippit fairytale (LHO shoots Tippit--LHO flees down Patton--LHO discards jacket in parking lot) needed folks to believe that Mr. Oswald was wearing CE162 as he left the rooming-house.
What would support this scenario is the anomaly of Mr. Frazier clearly recalling that Mr. Oswald had his gray flannel-looking jacket on that morning. If he's right, and if the blue-gray jacket really was found (without shenanigans) by Mr. Frankie Kaiser several days later in the TSBD, then we have Mr. Oswald leaving his jacket behind in the domino room when he left work on some day prior to 11/22. Which is, well, a little odd.............
As we are talking about possibilities, here's another one.
A DPD officer, who until today has remained unidentified, finds a jacket under a car. In several radio communications the jacket is described as being white. Captain Westbrook arrives at the scene, but hasn't got much time because he goes on to the TSBD. Westbrook turns over the jacket to another unidentified officer at which point the white jacket disappears. Nobody knows how it made it's way to the DPD office. When this is going on, the first search of Ruth Paine's house is also taking place. Just about at the same time the officers who conducted that search get back to the DPD office, Captain Westbrook suddenly shows up with the light gray jacket, with initials on it from officers never handled that jacket and were no part of the chain of custody, and submits it to the evidence room.
See where this is going?
-
As we are talking about possibilities, here's another one.
A DPD officer, who until today has remained unidentified, finds a jacket under a car. In several radio communications the jacket is described as being white. Captain Westbrook arrives at the scene, but hasn't got much time because he goes on to the TSBD. Westbrook turns over the jacket to another unidentified officer at which point the white jacket disappears. Nobody knows how it made it's way to the DPD office. When this is going on, the first search of Ruth Paine's house is also taking place. Just about at the same time the officers who conducted that search get back to the DPD office, Captain Westbrook suddenly shows up with the light gray jacket, with initials on it from officers never handled that jacket and were no part of the chain of custody, and submits it to the evidence room.
See where this is going?
Not sure I quite follow here, Mr. Weidmann.........
So this jacket disappears--------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dyw0KpPD/Jacket-parking-lot.jpg)
-------------and the "gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket" which Mr. Frazier saw on Mr. Oswald that morning ends up as CE162?
-
Not sure I quite follow here, Mr. Weidmann.........
So this jacket disappears--------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dyw0KpPD/Jacket-parking-lot.jpg)
-------------and the "gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket" which Mr. Frazier saw on Mr. Oswald that morning ends up as CE162?
"Disappears" as in nobody knows who the officer was that Westbrook gave the "white" jacket and/or how it got to the DPD office, where Westbrook suddenly presented it to the evidence room as a light gray jacket.
I don't know of the jacket Frazier saw morphed in CE162, I just wonder how it could have done. If Oswald was wearing a light gray jacket to Irving on Thursday evening, I don't see any way how that same gray jacket could be in Irving on Friday at 1 PM.
-
I don't know of the jacket Frazier saw morphed in CE162, I just wonder how it could have done. If Oswald was wearing a light gray jacket to Irving on Thursday evening, I don't see any way how that same gray jacket could be in Irving on Friday at 1 PM.
Well, exactly. Mr. Frazier puts Mr. Oswald in a "gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket" the morning of 11/22. So it has left Irving.
When shown CE162 and CE163, Mr. Frazier is positive that neither is the jacket he saw Mr. Oswald in that morning.
Thus we have three jackets:
1. CE162 (allegedly found in the parking lot)
2. CE163 (allegedly found in the TSBD)
3. The flannel, wool-looking gray jacket Mr. Oswald wore to work that morning.
If, as Mrs. Roberts recalled, Mr. Oswald was wearing a dark jacket when he left the rooming-house, then CE163 is the only candidate for that jacket.
CE162 never was worn by Mr. Oswald, but the 'investigating' authorities were desperate to put it on him as he left the rooming house.
As for the flannel, wool-looking gray jacket which Mr. Oswald wore to work that morning, it vanished from the face of the earth. Not it, but CE163 was 'discovered' in the domino room several days after the assassination. Something smells!
N.B. Mrs. Roberts told FBI on 27 Nov that when Mr. Oswald entered the rooming house he was wearing a "light colored shirt... and no jacket". This suggests that he left the gray wool-looking flannel jacket behind in the TSBD after the assassination. The point of the 'discovery' of CE163 in the TSBD was thus to rule it out as the jacket Mr. Oswald could have been wearing when he LEFT the rooming house. Because if he was wearing THAT jacket, a dark blue jacket, he would be ruled out as the Tippit killer. So they simply switched the jackets, pretending that CE163 and not the flannel wool-looking gray jacket was the one discovered in the TSBD afterwards.
**
There is a fourth jacket btw: the TAN jacket worn by the man who shot Officer Tippit. That man fled on to Patton, and then turned off down the alley off Patton.
The man in CE162 went on to Patton shortly thereafter. He went all the way down Patton to Jefferson.
I think there is good reason to believe that the true finder of CE162 was Mrs. Doretha Dean of Dean's Dairy Way. And she didn't find it under a car, but thrown on to a tire rack.
-
If the light gray jacket is the jacket that BW Frazier saw Oswald wearing that Friday morning , then that jacket is Oswald’s WORK jacket.
Since Oswald changed out of his pinkish red brown solid texture WORK shirt, then would he not have also changed out of his Work jacket also, presuming he left the TSBD wearing that light gray work jacket?
Was The dark blue jacket left behind in the Domino room or was it moved there later ?
Whaley the taxi drivers description of Oswald’s jacket is as though it was some kind of “work” jacket.
Could this be the light gray jacket?
If so then the following hypothetical scenario is as follows:
Oswald had kept the dark blue jacket at the boarding room. This was the jacket he wore AT HOME.
Oswald’s light gray jacket, was the jacket he wore AT WORK.
So If Oswald had taken off this light gray jacket after leaving Whaleys taxi, and Oswald entered the house carrying that jacket in his right hand as he walked past Earlene Roberts (in the living room) then Roberts LOS to that jacket might have been blocked, since she would be looking at The LEFT SIDE of Oswald as he walked past the living room on his way to his room. Plus the sofa , table and chairs were possibly blocking LOS at mid waist level.
What Roberts saw , therefore , was in fact Oswald in just the lighter pinkish reddish brownish shirt which Roberts seemed more certain was “shirt sleeves” but a color which she could not remember.
So Oswald then changed out of his work shirt AND his “work” jacket , which was the light gray jacket . That light gray jacket was left in his boarding room.
Oswald put on his darker brown shirt and put on his HOME jacket which was the dark blue jacket and then went out the house zipping up that blue jacket.
Oswald then walked directly to the Texas theater , and he managed to arrive at 1:15pm , paid for a ticket from Postal, and then Oswald entered the theatre and was seen by Burroughs at the popcorn counter.
Oswald found some seat and took off his blue jacket. The movie wasn’t going to start just yet, so Oswald decided he would go back out and visit the nearby Brewers store to take a quick look at some shoes. He left the theatre about 1:16, and returned about 1:20pm and he was moving around (now in the dark) trying to remember the seat he had left his jacket in!
Jack Davis noticed Oswald moving around in the dark to different seats as Oswald was looking for the seat he left the jacket in.
The Dark blue jacket therefore was probably found in a seat after Oswald’s arrest and it was determined the jacket belonged to Oswald.
That was a major problem as Tippits shooter was wearing a light color (or white ) jacket and so the dark blue jacket was placed in the Domino room some time later, while the light gray jacket found in Oswald’s room later became the “white” jacket which was filmed being carried by a DPD officer and the jacket claimed to be found under a car.
-
If the light gray jacket is the jacket that BW Frazier saw Oswald wearing that Friday morning , then that jacket is Oswald’s WORK jacket.
Since Oswald changed out of his pinkish red brown solid texture WORK shirt, then would he not have also changed out of his Work jacket also, presuming he left the TSBD wearing that light gray work jacket?
But Mrs. Roberts told FBI Nov 27 he was not wearing a jacket when he came in, only a light colored shirt (which would be CE151)
Was The dark blue jacket left behind in the Domino room or was it moved there later ?
Whaley the taxi drivers description of Oswald’s jacket is as though it was some kind of “work” jacket.
Could this be the light gray jacket?
If so then the following hypothetical scenario is as follows:
Oswald had kept the dark blue jacket at the boarding room. This was the jacket he wore AT HOME.
Oswald’s light gray jacket, was the jacket he wore AT WORK.
So If Oswald had taken off this light gray jacket after leaving Whaleys taxi, and Oswald entered the house carrying that jacket in his right hand as he walked past Earlene Roberts (in the living room) then Roberts LOS to that jacket might have been blocked, since she would be looking at The LEFT SIDE of Oswald as he walked past the living room on his way to his room. Plus the sofa , table and chairs were possibly blocking LOS at mid waist level.
What Roberts saw , therefore , was in fact Oswald in just the lighter pinkish reddish brownish shirt which Roberts seemed more certain was “shirt sleeves” but a color which she could not remember.
So Oswald then changed out of his work shirt AND his “work” jacket , which was the light gray jacket . That light gray jacket was left in his boarding room.
Oswald put on his darker brown shirt and put on his HOME jacket which was the dark blue jacket and then went out the house zipping up that blue jacket.
Oswald then walked directly to the Texas theater , and he managed to arrive at 1:15pm , paid for a ticket from Postal, and then Oswald entered the theatre and was seen by Burroughs at the popcorn counter.
Oswald found some seat and took off his blue jacket. The movie wasn’t going to start just yet, so Oswald decided he would go back out and visit the nearby Brewers store to take a quick look at some shoes.
Shoes will have been the last thing on his mind at this time!
He left the theatre about 1:16, and returned about 1:20pm and he was moving around (now in the dark) trying to remember the seat he had left his jacket in!
No, I think he may have briefly left the cinema later, AFTER spending several minutes failing to find his promised contact. Either that or Mr. Brewer spent ~10 mins deliberating with his IBM pals about whether or not to go down to the Texas Theatre and check the guy out. But then why would Mr. Oswald leave the cinema if he hasn't yet even tried to hook up with his contact?
Jack Davis noticed Oswald moving around in the dark to different seats as Oswald was looking for the seat he left the jacket in.
The Dark blue jacket therefore was probably found in a seat after Oswald’s arrest and it was determined the jacket belonged to Oswald.
That was a major problem as Tippits shooter was wearing a light color (or white ) jacket and so the dark blue jacket was placed in the Domino room some time later,
Yep, where it was switched out with the gray flannel wool-looking jacket Mr. Oswald had actually left behind in the domino room
-
You’re right Mr.Ford, the POTUS had been killed, the nation/state/county/ and Dallas were in panic mode. Oswald was not just casually going to watch a movie at a theater nor wound he be just looking at shoes.
Considering that, carrying a revolver , therefore would be not so unusual especially if Oswald was going to the theatre to meet someone for further instruction or guidance ( presuming Oswald is some kind of informant/ FBI/CIA asset).
Oswald Leaving the theatre at 1:30 though, and then entry to Brewers store was to avoid the police?
And then why did Oswald go BACK to the theatre?
-
You’re right Mr.Ford, the POTUS had been killed, the nation/state/county/ and Dallas were in panic mode. Oswald was not just casually going to watch a movie at a theater nor wound he be just looking at shoes.
Considering that, carrying a revolver , therefore would be not so unusual especially if Oswald was going to the theatre to meet someone for further instruction or guidance ( presuming Oswald is some kind of informant/ FBI/CIA asset).
Oswald Leaving the theatre at 1:30 though, and then entry to Brewers store was to avoid the police?
And then why did Oswald go BACK to the theatre?
Perhaps: he popped out to find a phone somewhere; then, seeing the heavy police presence, he took fright and went back into the cinema in hopes that his promised contact would after all turn up.
NB: he will have had no idea that an officer had been killed nearby, so his first assumption about the cop car activity would have been that it was somehow related to the events in Dealey Plaza. This inference spooked him. Had he been hung out to dry?
-
In Reclaiming History, Mr. Vincent Bugliosi (or whichever luminary wrote this part of his book) writes (emphases added by me):
Julia E. Postal, the forty-seven-year-old ticket-taker, has been listening to the radio too. Just before the Texas Theater opened for business at 12:45 p.m., her daughter called to tell her that someone had shot the president, and she has been listening right there in the box office ever since. Though most of the police cars had turned around, one continued on, its siren blasting as it shot past the theater box office. John Callahan, the theater manager, who is standing next to Mrs. Postal, says, “Something’s about to pop.”
They both scramble out onto the sidewalk. The squad car looks like it’s stopping up the street. Callahan gets into his car at the curb to go see what’s happening. Shoe store manager Johnny Brewer, on the sidewalk east of the theater, sees the suspicious man, “walking a little faster than usual,” slip into the Texas Theater behind Postal’s back. For Brewer, it’s all adding up.
Now compare the very different account Mrs. Postal gives in her 4 Dec affidavit:
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxVm0ZqV/Julia-Postal-4-Dec-box-office.jpg)
She is saying that man ducked into the theater BEFORE she went out onto the sidewalk-------i.e. she was still in the box office when this happened.
-
If it’s true that Postal saw Oswald go past her while she’ was in the booth then wouldn’t she have said something like “HEY What are you doing sir? “
Since she apparently just watched Oswald go past and said nothing, that may indicate she KNEW he had already bought a ticket earlier at about 1:15, so no need to say anything.
So she saw Oswald twice, the 1st time at about 1:15 and Oswald stopped at the booth and paid for a ticket, then went inside and was seen by Burroughs 30 secs later (basically 1:15 also.)
The 2nd time Postal saw Oswald was about 1:35 pm as Oswald returns to the theater from having left the theater earlier at 1:20 pm, Oswald not having found whomever (or whatever?) he was looking for.
The dark blue jacket , which Earlene Roberts thinks maybe was the one Oswald was wearing when he left the house, must have been taken off by Oswald after he was seen by Postal the 1st time and the jacket therefore left in some seat when Oswald went back out the theater AFTER 1:20pm.
Why Oswald went out to visit Brewers store is still not clear unless that was the nearest public phone available.
But then would not Oswald have been seen by Brewer USING the phone if it’s inside the store?
Was there a phone just OUTSIDE Brewers store?
-
If it’s true that Postal saw Oswald go past her while she’ was in the booth then wouldn’t she have said something like “HEY What are you doing sir? “
Since she apparently just watched Oswald go past and said nothing, that may indicate she KNEW he had already bought a ticket earlier at about 1:15, so no need to say anything.
Yep
So she saw Oswald twice, the 1st time at about 1:15 and Oswald stopped at the booth and paid for a ticket, then went inside and was seen by Burroughs 30 secs later (basically 1:15 also.)
The 2nd time Postal saw Oswald was about 1:35 pm as Oswald returns to the theater from having left the theater earlier at 1:20 pm, Oswald not having found whomever (or whatever?) he was looking for.
The dark blue jacket , which Earlene Roberts thinks maybe was the one Oswald was wearing when he left the house, must have been taken off by Oswald after he was seen by Postal the 1st time and the jacket therefore left in some seat when Oswald went back out the theater AFTER 1:20pm.
Why Oswald went out to visit Brewers store is still not clear unless that was the nearest public phone available.
But then would not Oswald have been seen by Brewer USING the phone if it’s inside the store?
Was there a phone just OUTSIDE Brewers store?
I think he may have left briefly, and considerably later than 1:20, and had his search for a phone cut short by all the cop car activity, which freaked him out as relating possibly to himself. So he goes into the outside lobby of the shoe shop to avoid being seen by the cops, and then, when the coast is clear, returns to the Texas Theatre. Next thing he knows, the cops are descending on him in the theater.
For this scenario to work, he has to leave the Texas Theatre as the result of failing to find his contact. And that failure will have taken time: various seats to sit in. By contrast, he may have been away from the Texas Theatre for less than a couple of minutes
-
Yep
I think he may have left briefly, and considerably later than 1:20, and had his search for a phone cut short by all the cop car activity, which freaked him out as relating possibly to himself. So he goes into the outside lobby of the shoe shop to avoid being seen by the cops, and then, when the coast is clear, returns to the Texas Theatre. Next thing he knows, the cops are descending on him in the theater.
For this scenario to work, he has to leave the Texas Theatre as the result of failing to find his contact. And that failure will have taken time: various seats to sit in. By contrast, he may have been away from the Texas Theatre for less than a couple of minutes
His being seen by Mrs. Roberts leaving the rooming-house in a dark jacket, and his being arrested wearing no jacket, strongly supports this scenario IMO. Because it suggests he left his jacket behind in the Texas Theatre, expecting to return after making his phone call. 'Where the hell is X?' 'Don't worry, they're on their way to the Theatre. Go back and sit tight.'
Remember: in all this, Mr. Oswald knows nothing about the killing of a police officer a few blocks away. So he will be understandably connecting the urgent police car activity on Jefferson to the Dealey Plaza shooting---------and his own unwitting connection to that. So spooked out will he be by this thought that he'll abort mission on the phone call and return to the Theatre, hoping against hope his promised contact will turn up. Reconnecting his body with his jacket will be the least of his worries.
-
PRIME CANDIDATE FOR MAN IN LIGHT BROWN JACKET ENCOUNTERED BY OFFICER BAKER BY REAR STAIRS SEVERAL FLOORS UP IN TSBD:
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRZX8GYN/Tan-Jacket-Man-Oswald-200.jpg)
PRIME CANDIDATE FOR TAN JACKET MAN (=SHOOTER OF OFFICER TIPPIT):
(https://i.postimg.cc/fRZX8GYN/Tan-Jacket-Man-Oswald-200.jpg)
Whether it really is this guy in both cases, or someone matching his description remarkably well, there is a simple fact about him that distinguishes him from Mr. Oswald: between Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff, he has not changed his clothing.
So IF Officer Tippit pulls over and talks with him, for whatever reason, HE will understandably fear/infer that the cop he encountered by the stairs in the Depository just after the shooting gave his full description, leading to a police radio broadcast. He feels especially exposed, and is panicked into shooting the officer.
It is very possible that this guy---------Tan Jacket Man----------finds himself in much the same situation as Mr. Oswald. He signed up for a White House-approved false-flag missed-shots incident, performed his part faithfully from the SN window, only to discover with horror just afterwards that something much more nefarious was going on: an actual assassination. If so, then the man encountered by Officer Tippit on Tenth St. is, just like Mr. Oswald in the Texas Theatre, a 'guiltocent' man on the run from the cops.
What's he doing on Tenth St.? One answer might be: going to catch a bus for Red Bird Airport. He's the LHO-resembling 'Oswald' whose flight 'to Cuba' was to be a core element in the original planned story fed to the world by the Kennedy administration. Despite what just happened back in Dealey Plaza, he's sticking with the plan.
But after the lethal encounter with the officer, he's a cop killer to boot. All bets are off. So he flees down Patton a little ways before turning into the alley, as seen by i.a. Ms. Helen Markham, and by Mr. Bill Brown's least favorite witness, Mr. Jimmy Burt@1963:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wz1kyFfP/Jimmy-Earl-Burt-ALLEY-crop.png)
-
His being seen by Mrs. Roberts leaving the rooming-house in a dark jacket, and his being arrested wearing no jacket, strongly supports this scenario IMO. Because it suggests he left his jacket behind in the Texas Theatre, expecting to return after making his phone call. 'Where the hell is X?' 'Don't worry, they're on their way to the Theatre. Go back and sit tight.'
Remember: in all this, Mr. Oswald knows nothing about the killing of a police officer a few blocks away.
This NB!
During his arrest at the Texas Theatre, Mr. Oswald believes------------erroneously------------that the cops are nabbing him because they know of his involvement in the Dealey Plaza outrage. Because he really was involved in the false-flag operation (NOT the assassination), he knows he is in very deep trouble. There was no contact in the Theatre, he has not been extracted. And the fact that the cops have tracked him down so quickly can only mean one thing: he has been made a patsy by the very people he's being serving all along-----------------the Kennedy administration.
When the cops start talking about a murdered officer, he is genuinely bewildered.
-
DPD worked out very soon that Mr. Oswald was not the man who murdered Officer Tippit. But they were under direction to quell any suggestion of a conspiracy in ANY aspect of this case. So they had no option but to do that thing they were so good at doing: pin the crime on the innocent man they had arrested. And then do everything they could to frame him for the Elm St. murder.
-
Since there never was any grayish wool like jacket found , then BW Frazier should be consulted if he could possibly confirm Oswald’s light gray jacket that is documented as evidence , as the jacket that Oswald was wearing on the Nov 22/63 Friday morning ride to the TSBD.
If so then Oswald’s light gray jacket was the one he likely was wearing when he left the TSBD after 12:33 pm.
But Oswald was NOT wearing that gray jacket when he was out on the front steps if he is Red Shirt Man in Hughes film.
Therefore , Oswald had to have returned back into the TSBD to go get his light gray jacket before he left the TSBD a few minutes later.
The light Gray jacket sort of reconciles Whaleys account since Whaley imo was a little over zealous to support the WC so he said he saw BOTH the light gray jacket and the blue jacket which he kind of morphed into a singular “work” jacket.
The light Gray jacket certainly fits better with Earlene Roberts having seen (she thought) at a glance, as Oswald entered the boarding house, that Oswald was wearing a light colored long sleeve shirt.
Oswald then took off his “work” light gray jacket and his “work” reddish solid texture shirt, to change to the darker brown shirt with hole in the sleeve and to his dark BLUE jacket.
That light gray jacket was therefore probably left at and thus found at Oswalds boarding house room and thats why it did NOT have any signs of dirt or motor oil on it from being (allegedly) thrown under a car in a parking lot, and it had no signs of any gunpowder residue on the end of the sleeve as likely would be the case, , since the sleeves of the Tippit gunman were probably NOT rolled up at time of shooting, and since witnesses of the Tippit shooter would likely have remembered such noticeable detail.
The BLUE jacket , therefore is more probably the jacket that Roberts saw Oswald zipping up on his way out the house, since it’s unlikely she would perceive a light gray jacket as “ dark” blue.
The BLUE jacket, therefore, was probably the one that Oswald was wearing when he entered the theater at approx 1:15 pm ( per Burroughs) which is just about the right amount of time from leaving boarding house at 1:04pm ( 11 minutes) Oswald needed to walk about 0.9 mile to the Texas theater.
The BLUE jacket was left in one of the seats that Oswald sat in before or after moving around several times at around 1:20 pm eventually sitting near Jack Davis.
The act of Oswald apparently getting up to move when the lights came on when the DPD entered the theater, and then Oswald STOPPED, may be an indication he was ABOUT to get his jacket from some other seat nearby, that he had left it in earlier, but halted because the police entered.
So the BLUE jacket theoretically got returned to the Domino room of TSBD because it being found in the Theater exonerated Oswald of being the Tippit shooter.
The Light GRAY jacket likely found in Oswald’s room at 1:30 pm had to becomes the broken chain of evidence “white “ jacket that was claimed to be the jacket worn by the Tippit shooter otherwise It’s extremely doubtful Oswald could have been the Tippit shooter.
So then Brewers account of seeing Oswald without any jacket on at approx 1:30 pm necessitates Oswald leaving the theater some time after 1:20 pm for some reason and being in Brewers store for a few minutes before Oswald then returns to the Theater.
The reason for Oswald moving around to several seats between 1:15 and 1:20 pm, Oswald shedding his blue jacket in one of those seats and Oswald exiting the theater after 1:20 pm then returning to the theater again by 1:35 pm, is an indication he was looking for someone. Oswald then went outside the theater to look around for the person, going as far as to check Brewers store, then Oswald returned to the theater hoping the person would arrive.