Who found Oswald’s wallet?


The story of the murder of Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit on November 22, 1963, took an unexpected twist this past year.

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.

What makes the film footage remarkable is that for 50 years, authorities have said that the wallet was not found until about an hour later when Dallas police detective Paul Bentley removed the wallet 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, 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.” Report 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 shows that the circular snaps, metal strips, and a zipper over the cash compartment are identical in both instances.

Rookstool says 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.

There’s another possibility: The wallet was planted at the Tippit murder scene.

Who found the wallet? And when did they find it?

Here’s the story insofar as it is known.

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.

“Why would they be asking me questions about Oswald and Hidell if it wasn’t in that wallet?”

Why does the wallet matter?

The wallet contained what is the only known instance of Oswald carrying identification under the alias of “Alek Hidell.” The two sets of identification cards found in the wallet are key evidence in the JFK case.

Kennedy was killed on Friday Nov. 22. By the next day, it was worldwide news that the rifle that was used in the shooting of President Kennedy was purchased by mail order with a postal money order made out by “A. Hidell” and listing Oswald’s PO box as the place for pick-up.

Oswald and “Hidell” were now tied by the rifle and the wallet to JFK’s murder, less than two hours after the event.

“Why would they be asking me questions about Oswald and Hidell if it wasn’t in that wallet?”

In custody, Oswald denied that he was the owner of the rifle found at the Texas School Book Depository where he worked and where several people saw one and possibly two gunmen. The gun had been ordered in the name of “Hiddel.”

For the FBI man, Barrett said the wallet made the case against Oswald a “slam dunk.”

Yet the Dallas authorities never wrote a report about any wallet found at the Tippit murder scene. Perhaps that was oversight. Perhaps not.

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.

The best evidence indicates that an unknown person brought Lee Harvey Oswald’s wallet to the scene of Tippit’s murder.

Seen at the crime: Dallas police officers handling Lee Oswald’s wallet at the scene of the murder of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit.

——-

MORE: See Joseph McBride’s book Into the Nightmare and my own research in Chapters 6-7 of State Secret.

214 comments

  1. Neil Hodges says:

    Great work Bill

    I have two questions:

    1 – How often do murder suspects leave personal identification at the scene of the crime?

    2 – Why would the Dallas PD cover up the fact that Oswald’s wallet was found at the scene of Tippit’s murder? Wouldn’t this evidence have clinched the case for Oswald killing one of their own?

    • mball says:

      As to #1, you’d be surprised. As to #2. I think that’s the question. It seems like there was certainly a wallet found at the Tippit scene, and that SA Barret said that it had Oswald ID in it. So why be shy about producing the crusher against Oswald in re Tippit? The whole ID business in re Oswald and the Tippit murder seems offbeat. George O’Toole, many years ago, used a PSE on recorded interviews with the participants in Oswald’s ride to jail from the theater (The Assassination Tapes). There were different stories of what ID was found in Oswald’s wallet during that ride, as well as who found it. And almost all of the accounts showed strong indications of deception. So it does appear that something was being hidden.

      • bcmarshall says:

        Thanks for bringing up George O’Toole’s book. It was a fascinating work that pointed to deception by all of the arresting officers regarding the wallet and identification. It wasn’t just one person. If many people are involved in a cover-up it’s called a conspiracy.

        • mball says:

          It is a fascinating book. Assuming the accuracy of the results (and it seems to have been done in a professional manner), it really does look like there was something going on between the DPD and Oswald. It makes me wonder about a relationship between them that well preceded the assassination.

    • Taz says:

      That could be anyone’s wallet and how do we know who’s I.D. was in it? Period!

    • Aclipper says:

      Back and to the left.

      That’s all i have to say.

  2. Jonathan says:

    If the wallet in question is as Barrett says, Oswald was framed for both Tippit’s and JFK’s murder. Here’s why.

    Focus on Bentley’s story of finding a wallet in Oswald’s back pocket. If that story is TRUE, the wallet in question is clearly a second wallet used to frame Oswald; also if Bentley’s story is true and the wallet in question is a second wallet prepared in advance of Tippit’s killing, Tippit’s murder was pre-planned.

    If Bentley’s story of finding a wallet in Oswald’s back pocket is FALSE and the only wallet is the wallet in question, one must ask the obvious questions: (1) Why did Bentley lie? (2) Why did the law enforcement authorities not use the wallet obtained at the Tippit murder scene to tie Oswald to Tippit’s murder, as WFAA has done? These questions do not have plausible answers, which means Bentley must have found a second wallet.

    Meaning Oswald was framed.

    • Jim Glover says:

      Also this fits into the frame up which since i was being set up too, I found that the Usher at the Texas Theater told me that Oswald was in the Show before Tippit was killed. His name is Butch Burrows and just to connect all the other prefabricated dots of the Big Event with many twists to blow minds, Burrows said they took Oswald s twin out the back door a few minutes after they took Lee Oswald out the front.

      • John McAdams says:

        Check Burrows’ Warren Commission testimony. He changed his story quite a bit after that and before he started telling the story you just recounted in the 1980s.

        Also, check the testimony of Johnny Calvin Brewer and Julia Postal. They make it clear that Oswald entered the theater after Tippit was shot, and indeed after he had time to walk from the scene of the Tippit shooting to the Texas Theater.

        • jeffc says:

          Butch Burroughs was actually never asked by the Warren Commission about anything preceding 1:30 PM. Other witnesses inside the theater also saw Oswald well before the official story places his entrance. Oswald moved from seat to seat and momentarily sat down directly beside several persons. The witnesses inside the theater were mostly ignored, and many of the initial statements – such as from Brewer and Postal – were not taken for several weeks, in itself unusual in this case.

          There is also a clothing discrepancy. Tippit’s assailant was ID’ed as wearing a “white shirt”, while Oswald was arrested wearing a brown shirt. The man who allegedly snuck into the theater was described as going to the balcony, but Oswald was seated on the main floor.

          As well, DPD officers were directed to Oswald by a man in the theater who remains unidentified (similar to the “5’10″ 165lb” description provided in Dealey Plaza by an unidentified and unknown man).

          • leslie sharp says:

            jeffc, excellent information, and I for one thank you for highlighting these details. I anticipate you will be challenged; could you offer a general source ie. Warren Commission records, and/or?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jeff,

            There was no clothing discrepancy. The Tippit suspect was described as wearing a white shirt AND a white jacket (which would’ve mostly covered the brown shirt, leaving only some of his white t-shirt showing). Oswald ditched the jacket before he got to the theater.

            The WC asked Burroughs if he’d seen the man the police arrested when he came into the theater and Burroughs said he had not. IOW, he denied seeing Oswald enter the theater, period, no matter *when* he supposedly came in. Later on his story, like Jean Hill’s, got much more
            “interesting.”

            Julia Postal assumed the suspect went up to the balcony specifically because Burroughs hadn’t seen him come in. There was a stairway near the entrance leading to the balcony that kids sometimes used to sneak in. But there was another stairway down to the main floor that Oswald could’ve used, so there really is no contradiction.

            Postal and Burroughs explained this when they testified:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burroughs.htm
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/postal.htm

            The idea that a “mystery man” ID-ed Oswald is a myth. Brewer waited for the police at an exit door and let them in. McDonald later found out his name and recognized him as the same man:
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mcdonald.htm

            Your source was John Armstrong, I assume?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          What about the Oswald they took out the back of the Theater others witnessed?

  3. Marcus Hanson says:

    I wonder why Sgt.Croy made no reference to the wallet,when he gave his testimony to the WC’s Burt Griffin?

    Rookstool seems loose with his language : regardless of whether he is right or wrong , he should not speak of Croy’s “testimony” if he means “interview”.

    • mball says:

      Croy seems not to have made reference to much. I believe he was the first officer on the scene, but I don’t think he made a report. His story about how he came to be at the scene is odd. He apparently heard the call on a police radio in his personal car, and responded. But he said that he got there when they were loading Tippit into the ambulance. Inasmuch as the ambulance had only a very short distance to respond, and they got Tippit out of there quickly, Croy would have had a job to get there as quickly as he said he did. He apparently was the first person to talk to Helen Markham, but made no report on that. Myers told of a policeman who was trysting in a nearby house with someone other than his wife, and told responding officers what he saw. Makes me wonder even more about Croy.

      • KenS says:

        Here’s what Julia Postal says:

        Mr. BALL. And you didn’t see him actually enter the theatre then?
        Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir.

        So we only have the word of one witness that anyone went into the theater without paying. Any other witnesses on Jefferson come forward with testimony about this wild person evading the police? Just Johnny Brewer? Johnny Brewer claims in his testimony that he pointed out Oswald to the police. Is that really what happened? And this is a little off topic, but Mr. Brewer says something very interesting during his testimony:

        Mr. BREWER – And somebody hollered “He’s got a gun.”
        And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don’t know who it was, “Kill the President, will you.” And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.

        If Mr. Brewer’s recollection is accurate here, as you are assuming his recollection that Oswald slipped into the theater is, how did the police know this?

        • John McAdams says:

          If Mr. Brewer’s recollection is accurate here, as you are assuming his recollection that Oswald slipped into the theater is, how did the police know this?

          In the first place, Johnny Calvin Brewer told her, and asked her to call the cops.

          In the second place, you have posted a misleading passage from Postal’s testimony. Here is more:

          Mr. BALL. And after you saw the police car go west with its siren on, why at the time the police car went west with its siren on, did you see the man that ducked? This man that you were–

          Mrs. POSTAL. This man, yes; he ducked into the box office and–I don’t know if you are familiar with the theatre.

          Mr. BALL. Yes; I have seen the theatre.

          Mrs. POSTAL. You have? Well, he was coming from east going west. In other words, he ducked right in.

          Mr. BALL. Ducked in, what do you mean? He had come around the corner–

          Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he ducked in.

          Mr. BALL. Now, as the car went by, you say the man ducked in, had you seen him before the car went by, the police went by?

          Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I was looking up, as I say, when the cars passed, as you know, they make a tremendous noise, and he ducked in as my boss went that way to get in his car.

          So she did see Oswald, but apparently was not looking at the moment he ducked in.

          • KenS says:

            Sorry Dr., it still doesn’t wash. Someone ducked around the corner, but Mrs. Postal testified she didn’t see anyone “enter” the theater. I’m no doctor, but I think that means “go inside.”
            And while I’m here, do you think Brewer really heard a policeman say anything to Oswald about killing the President?

  4. TLR says:

    And we have the wallet left at the Paine house the morning of 11/22, mentioned by the Warren Report – “His wallet containing $170 was left intact in a dresser-drawer.”

    I’ve personally never used more than one wallet at a time.

    • bogman says:

      That’s news to me. I would love to see an answer from McAdams on why Oswald kept at least two separate wallets, according to the WC and DPD.

      • John McAdams says:

        So it’s some kind of Iron Law that nobody has two wallets?

        The wallet left in Irving contained money he was leaving for Marina.

        • Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

          There isn’t any Iron Law on two wallets, but it’s surprising to have three.
          The WC states what DPD reported: Oswald’s wallet was taken from him after being arrested at the Texas Theater.
          FBI agent Bob Barrett appears on film handling a wallet that he later said had the Oswald&Hidell identification inside.
          And there is another police report about a wallet Oswald left at the Paine´s home the very morning of November 22, 1963.
          The “three wallets problem” is a conspiracy fact since DPD suppressed the one found at the Tippit scene to avoid the argument that it was planted.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Yes, three wallets (lol).

            At home, at DP Stn and at the Tippit scene (was called in by officer or detective IIRC).

            Just shows there’s no such thing as the perfect conspiracy.

        • Neil says:

          It’s a Man Law.

          Most men use the same wallet for years. They don’t change wallets like women change purses…

        • Paulf says:

          John:

          You “iron law” jibe displays total contempt for historical research. Sure, anything is possible. But a serious historical researcher weighs possibilities to come up with more probable solutions.

          Is it possible that Oswald had multiple wallets that just happened to be found at incriminating spots filled with incriminating materials, and is it possible that the contradictions in the police accounts were honest and inadvertent mistakes.

          But given the weight of evidence, the fact that it would not be normal for a guy to have two wallets let alone three, the unlikelihood that someone in his position would leave incriminating evidence strewn about, that he admitted to being a patsy, was killed before he could talk and all the other strange and illogical events surrounding the investigation, it takes an incredible amount of willful ignorance to take the “well, sure anything is possible and I believe the most unlikely possibility” attitude.

          • John McAdams says:

            Is it possible that Oswald had multiple wallets that just happened to be found at incriminating spots filled with incriminating materials,

            No, because no such thing happened.

            and is it possible that the contradictions in the police accounts were honest and inadvertent mistakes.

            Yes, it’s normal for witness testimony to contain contradictions.

            But here, the real “evidence” about the “extra wallet” is decades-old testimony. That’s particularly unreliable.

        • mitch says:

          It’s also fair to point out that a man who uses to two different names would possibly be more likely to use two wallets.

          • Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

            But not to have one of the wallets with an evidence of the link between the two different names. And actually, there were three wallets in evidence: one in the WC Report, one at the Tippit´s murder scene, and one at Paine´s house.

        • steve cearfoss says:

          Why not just leave the $$ in an envelope? Why leave it in a wallet then take a second wallet when leaving the apt? And what about the wallet said to be found in his back pocket? Along with the wallet at the Tippit scene, that makes three. Mr. McAdams, turn in your Mockingbird membership card.

    • bogman says:

      An additional question: So according to the official record, Oswald had two wallets but made sure he took the one that tied him to the assassination? Amazing.

      • TLR says:

        Oddly, when he was arrested in New Orleans during the summer, his wallet contained no “Hidell” identification. But we’re supposed to believe that he was dumb enough to carry it around with him on the day of the assassination.

  5. In the WFAA interview from 11/23/63 linked below, Detective Paul Bentley mentions removing Oswald’s wallet from his back pocket. But now the conspiracy theorists can pretend Bentley was a liar because he ALSO mentions seeing things like “a driver’s license and credit cards” in Oswald’s wallet too (and we know Oswald had none of those items).

    But it’s fairly obvious from the language being utilized by Bentley in this Nov. 23 TV interview (“…and things like that…”) that Bentley didn’t examine in great detail every item in LHO’s billfold. He ASSUMED the cards were ordinary things like driver’s license and credit cards. ….

    http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/06/nick-mcdonald-and-paul-bentley.html

    • Paulf says:

      David:

      First, you are assuming what Bentley assumed.

      Second, police are trained to look at the details of the things they find. This wasn’t a casual event, it was a murder investigation in which every detail is critical. If he wasn’t a liar, he was extremely incompetent and speaking completely out of school.

    • Jonathan says:

      David,

      I don’t believe Bentley was lying at all in the interview to which you link. His comment about the wallet was very much in passing and un-rehearsed.

      I don’t believe Barrett is lying either. He’s got no reason to lie. If anything, what he told WFAA gives the lie to the Warren Report.

      Ipso facto, 1-2-3 wallets, as Arnaldo writes. Time to open a real investigation into the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit.

  6. Al says:

    Not sure I get why it would have been professionally hazardous for an FBI agent to question a Dallas police detective? The article does not make that clear.

  7. KenS says:

    Seems incredible that Oswald would leave such a convenient trail of incriminating evidence in his wake as made his way to be captured at the Texas Theater. Phoney ID to tie him to the murder of the POTUS; spent cartridge shells from the pistol he just committed more murder with! What was the boy thinking?

    • Jonathan says:

      James Earl Ray, we’re told, did the same thing. Left a treasure trove of stuff implicating him on the sidewalk right outside the rooming house from which the government said he fired the shot that killed MLK.

      Not too many years ago, attorney William Pepper convinced a Memphis jury in a civil lawsuit that a particular individual other than Ray, a local bar owner, was responsible for MLK’s death.

      The New York Times of course carried that story on its front page (just kidding).

      The point is, “throw-down” inculpatory material was used in the MLK assassination. Here in the JFK case, as Arnaldo writes, the government buried the too-obviously-planted inculpatory wallet.

      • Pat Speer says:

        Not to be the nay-sayer, but my recollection is that the only thing linking Ray to the scene was a print on the rifle, and that that print was a dead end at that time–as the FBI had no system in place for finding perps based on one print. My recollection is that the FBI was embarrassed by its inability to find King’s killer, and thereby went the extra distance–and had its fingerprint analysts go through the prints of thousands of white-power types, and then and only then the men on the most wanted list–which included Ray due to his recent escape from prison. The ID of Ray’s print was purportedly a lucky break.

        Now, this, of course, raises another question. Was someone in the FBI “steering” the investigation towards Ray?

        • Alex S says:

          Pretty sure the bundle dropped in front of Canipe’s had several items tied to Ray aside from the rifle, including a radio or something like that with his prisoner number carved into it.

          Of course the rifle itself was never tied to the murder of MLK Jr.

  8. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Thanks for posting this Mr. Simpich. I’ve been going to read your book as I understand It’s free on MFF. Also wanted to read Mr.McBride’s for a while but I still prefer hard copies and it’s a little pricey for a poor fella.
    So we have an officer being handed Oswald’s wallet at the Tippett murder scene before Oswald is arrested at the Texas Theater. Hmmm. Does sound a little fishy if another officer took it out of his pocket after his arrest.
    Another interesting aspect to me is the real ID and the alias ID in the same wallet. I could see an undercover agent having a wallet with his alias info for use while working and another wallet with his real ID for when he was not. But to have both in one would have to be an intelligence no-no. If caught with such by the “enemy”, your screwed.
    BTW, wasn’t that O’s favorite tv show as a kid, I Had Three Wallets? Oh yeah, that was I Led 3 Lives.

  9. Jeff Pascal says:

    Again, this raises more questions than answers. If true, how come this is not in any contemporaneous account? And again logically, if true this means almost certainly Officer Tippit’s killer was Oswald, or an imposter. I know there are reports of a double in the vicinity of the Texas Theatre, however is it more likely Oswald was the assassin of Tippit, rather than an imposter? It gets really convoluted, and easy to overlook a lot of evidence and pin it on an imposter. It’s kind of Dealey Plaza in reverse, where there is so much evidence of someone shooting from the Grassy Knoll area that to completely deny it all, along with the statements from both hospitals is disingenuous. As it stands, I’m about 2/3 convinced LHO shot Tippit, and 50/50 whether Tippit was part of the conspiracy. My mind is open though.

  10. Jonathan says:

    This is the most important post since I’ve been posting here, since early 2013. It establishes Oswald was framed for the murders of J.D. Tippit and JFK.

    This post has few comments. I’ll add this:

    Tippit’s murder was pre-planned. The planted wallet proves this.

    McAdams and Photon should address this post. It undermines their ideas of what happened.

  11. Jean Davison says:

    Folks, the film showing the Tippit scene wallet was first written about by Dale Myers in 1998. Please read what he says about it here and in other articles at his site, since he has surely studied the wallet issue more than anyone else:

    http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2014/03/solving-tippit-murders-wallet-mystery.html

    Consider this — the suspect’s ID supposedly turns up at the murder scene, yet no officer there calls headquarters to report finding this important clue. So far as we know, not a single lawman or witness present says a word about this wallet or seeing Oswald’s ID for over 30 years — it’s not in any contemporary police report, interview, or testimony, including the testimony/reports of Barrett, Westbrook, and Croy.

    Barrett didn’t lie, he evidently misremembered when and where Westbrook asked him about the two names. Barrett saw Westbrook with the wallet at the scene and then both men went to the theater and from there to the police station. Thirty years later it would be easy to misremember when and where they had this conversation.

    Westbrook’s 2-page report on Oswald’s arrest is here, no wallet is mentioned:

    http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/07/0705-001.gif

    http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/07/0705-002.gif

    Here’s the 11/22 report by Officers Poe and Jez:

    http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/21/2197-001.gif

    (Click on the pages to enlarge)

    • Pat Speer says:

      I’ve followed this argument from a distance for several years now, but I have to say that at this point, the “single-wallet theorists” are winning the argument. Rockstool made an argument, based upon the photos, that the wallet in question is the wallet in the archives. Myers countered this argument using the photos. If there is no detailed response to Myers’ argument, IMO, his argument is likely to stand.

      That won’t end the debate, of course, but move it back to square one…that there was a wallet found at the Tippit scene that subsequently disappeared.

      • Jonathan says:

        John Armstrong maintains there were FIVE wallets:

        1. the wallet found at the Tippit murder scene, which was never inventoried and which disappeared

        2. the wallet Bentley took from Oswald

        3. two wallets recovered from the Paine residence, which were given FBI numbers and which are in the national archives

        4. the wallet furnished to Marina from her room in the Paine residence, which contained $170 or $180

        It’s clear to me Rockstool is maintaining one of the ##2-4 wallets is the #1 wallet. I think he’s wrong.

        • Tom DeVries says:

          Come on people, I’m half way through reading this and this is the first mention of the Armstrong information? Armstrong has basically solved the case in my mind. Spend $85 on Amazon and become enlightened!

        • Jean Davison says:

          Armstrong is counting the same wallet twice.
          His #4 is one of two wallets at the Paine house — a black plastic bank promotional giveaway in which Oswald kept their meager savings (they had no bank account). The other one at the Paine house was a red wallet belonging to Marina (what, the wife can’t have a billfold, too?).

          Here’s a document explaining the black plastic wallet:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9893&relPageId=311

          The wallet Oswald was carrying makes a total of three.

          • Jonathan says:

            Jean,

            I have to ask, why are Americans having to question and debate how many wallets Oswald owned and what the wallets contained?

            The answer to me is clear: The true facts have been blurred by government agencies. So that the American people are prevented from knowing for sure what occurred in Dallas.

            You would have the rest here believe there has been no deliberate blurring of facts by government agencies in the JFK case; that all is crystal clear. The thing is, everywhere one turns in this case one finds inconsistencies and contradictions.

            The case is like LHO himself, one big mystery, one big cover story, one big lie.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jonathan,

            It shouldn’t be surprising that there are a large number of “inconsistencies and contradictions.” There are well over a million pages of testimony/documents involving hundreds, maybe thousands, of witnesses and official investigators, all of them fallible. On top of that, this huge record has been examined intensely for decades by people who are searching for anything at all that is unexplained or “looks funny.” No other murder case in history has ever been examined this extensively and intensely.

            If all the “inconsistencies” were really clues and not meaningless anomalies that might turn up in some other record this huge, why is it that no one has explained what all these discrepancies are supposed to mean? If the WC narrative isn’t what happened, what’s the alternative story?

            Explain the Tippit scene wallet, e.g., from the conspirators’ point of view — nobody has done that. “It was planted” is not a narrative that shows what CTs think may have happened. Did somebody create the two IDs and then carry the wallet around on 11/22, knowing that Oswald would leave the TSBD… or what??

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Michael T. Griffith provides a detailed response to Myers’ arguments here:

        http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/tippit.pdf

        (Griffith notes grammatical and spelling errors so I wonder if the use of ‘Malace’ is intentional).

    • Neil says:

      Thanks for the Myers link. It explains a lot but :

      - we still have an unidentified wallet found at or near the Tippit murder scene. Who did it belong to if not Oswald?

      - Barrett feels pretty strongly about this and admits that he waited almost 50 years to challenge the official Dallas police story because he wanted to protect his career.

      • Jean Davison says:

        Neil,

        The owner of the wallet is unknown, but the fact that none of the policemen in the film reported it suggests that it wasn’t connected to the case or considered to be important, imo.

        I don’t think the reason Barrett gave for not mentioning the wallet until years later makes sense, but his silence required some kind of explanation. Psychologists have found that when people form a false memory, as I think Barrett did, they will often rationalize (unconsciously make up details) to fill in the gaps. Here’s a brief example I found online — right side of this page:

        http://the-mouse-trap.blogspot.com/2006/06/memories-memories-and-more-memories.html

        And an article by memory expert Elizabeth Loftus:

        http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/2003Nature.pdf

        • Neil says:

          - Even if the person who owned the wallet was cleared of any involvement with Tippit’s murder, the wallet at the scene should’ve been documented. We should know who the owner was. That it wasn’t identified and we don’t know who it belonged to leaves us with some serious questions and doesn’t allow us to put to bed the rumor or uncorroborated claim that the wallet was linked to Oswald somehow

          - I don’t like to play amateur psychiatrist but Barrett’s statement on this issue sounds more like a confession from a man who decided to come clean after 50 years. It’s not a matter of him misremembering. It’s a matter of him admitting that he kept his mouth shut and chose not to put himself in the middle of any controversies for 50 years.

          I don’t think Barrett’s statements alone is sufficient for me to conclude the wallet belonged to or was connected to Oswald. However, the lack of documentation identifying the wallet shown in the films makes it impossible to assume that it was innocently omitted from the documented evidence…

        • Jonathan says:

          Jean,

          I believe the officer examining the wallet in the WFAA film were examining a thing of great interest to them. The WFAA is focused on their hands as they handle the wallet. Hands are expressive.

          More telling to me is DPD officer McDonalds’s statement Julia Postal heard, “We have our man on both counts.” How could officer McDonald believe the person just arrested in the Texas Theater had killed both J.D. Tippit (just a few minutes ago) and JFK (1:20 hours ago).

          I don’t trust officer McDonald or his statements. But they reveal a reliance on the Tippit-scene wallet, which is most important.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jonathan: you state “More telling to me is DPD officer McDonalds’s statement Julia Postal heard, “We have our man on both counts.” How could officer McDonald believe the person just arrested in the Texas Theater had killed both J.D. Tippit (just a few minutes ago) and JFK (1:20 hours ago).”

            I had a similar exchange with Jean Davison if I recall correctly, among others several months ago. Why did the officer at the theater say “both counts,” then Oswald is arrested and indicted on Tippit’s murder only … until hours later when he is indicted on the murder of Kennedy? How did McDonald know the man arrested in the theater was a suspect in the Kennedy assassination? and if Oswald was as suspect, why wasn’t he indicted for the Kennedy assassination immediately? Too soon? The press wouldn’t buy it. Authorities needed a few more hours to get that rifle and those shells into evidence? In the meantime, “officer down,” passions are ignited, fuel on the fire of hatred for Oswald, and victory, ‘don’t worry folks, The DPD Got Their Man.’ I think the timing of those in the DPD with inside knowledge of what had just happened to Our Nation was slightly off. Unfortunately for them, Officer McDonald almost ‘blew the pooch,” at the Texas Theatre, except that we are still being confronted by apologists insisting his statement has no merit.

            Study the Justice of the Peace who indicted Oswald. Study the JP who signed off on Kennedy’s body being removed from Parkland to be shipped to Bethesda.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jonathan,

            Review the TV coverage for 11/22 and I think you’ll find that the media quickly assumed there was likely a connection between JFK’s murder and the shooting of a policeman in a nearby neighborhood about 45 minutes later. Cop shootings weren’t common in Dallas in 1963, and JFK’s killer had apparently fled the scene.

            Also, at 1:28 someone asked the police dispatcher if there was any indication the two shootings were connected, and the dispatcher replied, “Well, the descriptions on the suspect are similar and it is possible.” Transcript here:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes3.htm

          • Jonathan says:

            Jean,

            So what? I don’t care about anyone’s uninformed opinion.

            I’ll buy your explanation of the JFK assassination, Jean. I’ve got an open mind. Give me an explanation that doesn’t conflict with the historical record.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          How can you not say it doesn’t make sense? So Rookstool, Croy and Hosty suffer the same affliction?

          We know that Parkland doctors and Bethesda autopsy technicians were instructed or ordered to keep their mouths shut for the good of their career and to protect their institutions.

          I doubt that an FBI agent would say something contrary to the WCR and contend with J. Edgar Hoover.

          Like these FBI agents said: The cops reported one story (they couldn’t have two floating around and neither did they want to reconcile them).

      • leslie sharp says:

        How ironic that Elizabeth Loftus has been introduced in this exchange.

        “Loftus took her first academic appointment in 1970 at the New School for Social Research in New York City.[3] Her research during her time there focused on the organization of semantic information in longterm memory.” (from her bio.)

        A rising star of the New School was Beatrice Bishop Berle, wife of Adolf Berle, State Department, OAS, present in Sao Paulo during the 1964 coup, and Board of Nationwide Insurance for whom William Hyde, father of Ruth Paine was employed, Berle’s prized endorsement of the Human Ecology Fund, Cornell University, enabled the MKUltra experiments. A key component of MKU training was the admonishment: “Remember to Forget.” Funny how memory was a significant focus of the operation, and that some years later, Ms. Loftus took up the mantle … perhaps to address those on whom the experiments had worn off? I’m not suggesting Barrett had been programmed; I am questioning the ethics of anyone that would parade Ms. Loftus’ expertise without acknowledging the spirit behind her training.

        According to David Price, St. Martin’s University as published in “Anthropology Today” Vol. 23,No. 3, June 2007: https://www.wikileaks.org/w/images/AT-june07-Price-PT1.pdf

        There are many elements of Human Ecology-funded
        research whose articulation with CIA needs is still poorly
        understood. For example, the funded bioelectrics research,
        or programmes establishing psychiatric scales, or group
        psychology studies may have been incorporated into the
        CIA’s secret research on interrogation, or they may merely
        have provided an air of legitimacy for the foundation
        – obviously, psychiatric scales could be useful instru-
        ments for interrogators gauging interrogation subjects’
        mental health and responses. Questions remain concerning
        what the Human Ecology Fund’s interest was in funding
        Dr Beatrice Berle’s research on the impact of illness on
        families in Harlem (HEF 1963). It may simply be that
        the Fund was providing a Board member’s spouse with a
        nepotistic kickback unrelated to MK-Ultra’s desires (Berle
        was the wife of HEF Board member, educator, diplomat
        and cold warrior Adolf Berle), but given the CIA’s record
        of experimental abuse of prisoners and low-ranking sol-
        diers (Biderman and Zimmer 1961, Marks 1979), we may
        justifiably wonder what their interest in other relatively
        disempowered and poor populations may have been. Other
        listed Human Ecology-funded studies had obvious appli-
        cations to MK-Ultra projects studying counterinsurgency
        and propaganda. These include funded studies examining
        revolutions, refugee studies, Chinese personality types,
        Chinese family structure, Soviet psychology, cross-cultural
        communication, and various studies examining elements of psychological
        profiling.

        • Photon says:

          Leslie, your post has absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely connected with the assassination, nor frankly with anything , period. What is your point? Your posting is a classic example of how bipolar individuals express themselves, without punctuation, identifiable verb or object. Is there a question at the end of your statement?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Photon, I’m sorry if I have struck a cord. If my comment has no relevance, why bother challenging it?.

            I would suggest a mantra for you, an antidote to the programming you appear to have been subjected to: “Don’t Forget to Remember.” The bi-polar condition you reference eventually surfaces in all those inducted into the service of counter-intelligence and unjustified wars. I suspect you are struggling to identify your condition and the said cause.

            Remember who you are at your core, who you were meant to be, not the shell you are in danger of becoming.

          • John Kirsch says:

            The comment I am replying to must represent a low point for this site.
            The writer uses the word “bipolar” in reference to the person he is responding to. I gather from this that the commenter wants me, the reader, to believe that the person he is responding to is “bipolar.”
            The meanings that words take on depend on how they are used.
            If a mental health professional used the term “bipolar disorder” to diagnose a patient, we could have some assurance that the mental health professional is using the words in a neutral way, to describe, as best he or she can, the behavior that the patient “presents.” We would even hope that the mental health professional would use the words in a positive way, in order to help the person diagnosed with “bipolar disorder.”
            Given the content and tone of the comment I’m responding to, it is clear to me that the person who wrote this comment meant to use the word “bipolar” in order to undermine the legitimacy of the comment he is commenting on. (I believe the Soviets were infamous for that sort of thing.)
            Beyond that is the question of credentials. My understanding is that the person who wrote the comment I’m responding to is certified in CPR.
            Given the authoritative tone of his comment, “Your posting is a classic example of how bipolar individuals express themselves …” are we to believe that the commenter has credentials in the mental health field that permit him to make such statements?

          • Jonathan says:

            Photon’s confused.

            A true photon is a unit or packet of electromagnetic energy moving at the speed of light. It can have one of two polarizations but is never described as being bi-polar.

            I agree with John Kirsch. A low point.

          • John Kirsch says:

            When I worked as a political reporter in Iowa, I heard lots of stories about present and past political figures in the state.
            One story I heard was about Harold Hughes, who served as governor, then U.S. senator. Hughes, a former truck driver, had overcome alcoholism in the course of climbing the political ladder.
            The story I heard (I don’t if it’s true) is that whenever someone challenged him on his alcoholism in an attempt to call his credibility into question, he would respond by saying “I have a certificate that says I’m sane. What do you have?”
            Whether Hughes actually had a certificate of some kind is beside the point. The point is that he refused to accept the negative judgments of others. Oftentimes those negative judgments people make of others say more about the person who is doing the judging than they do about the person being judged.

        • John McAdams says:

          I am questioning the ethics of anyone that would parade Ms. Loftus’ expertise without acknowledging the spirit behind her training.

          And what was the “spirit behind her training?”

          You post is simply about how she was at the New School and somebody else at the New School was connected to somebody else who was connected to somebody else whose agenda you consider sinister.

          Given your “logic,” everybody in the whole world could be “outed” as sinister.

    • bogman says:

      Jean, your links do nothing for me in offering any clarification of the wallet evidence in the WFAA report.

      Myers admits his own continuing confusion at the end of his article:

      “Fifty years on, despite considerable effort to unravel this curious episode, numerous conflicts remain, which leaves this tantalizing allegation distinctly – and perhaps forever – out of focus.”

      A wallet is filmed at the Tippit murder scene that an officer and an FBI agent both later say is the Oswald wallet with the Hidell ID tying him to the rifle found in the TSBD.

      The fact the wallet doesn’t show up in any official report doesn’t make it less suspicious, it makes it more so.

      If it’s not Oswald’s wallet, who’s wallet was it? Presumably it had identification — was that person ever contacted as the prime suspect in the Tippit shooting?

      How could a wallet found at the scene of a crime NOT be included in any police report or in those two supposedly exhaustive government investigations by the WC and HSCA?

      Myers says:

      “Anyone with a brain knows that if Oswald’s wallet had been found at the Tippit murder scene it would have been printed in every newspaper and broadcast on every radio and television station in America before the end of the day, Friday, November 22, 1963.”

      Anyone with a brain knows that a wallet found at a crime scene is entered in a police report, isn’t it?

      And the he says this:

      “Kenneth H. Croy told me in 2009 that the wallet turned over to him at the Tippit shooting scene had seven or so identification cards in it, and that none were in the name of Oswald.”

      If that’s true, then who the hell’s ID was it and why wasn’t it immediately followed up on by the DPD, the FBI, et al?

      What your links prove to me one of two things:

      1) If it’s not Oswald’s wallet, then evidence that pointed to anyone other than Oswald was being suppressed or overlooked right from the start.

      2) If the wallet did contain Oswald’s ID, then “evidence” of Oswald’s guilt that might’ve pointed to a set-up was being suppressed right from the start.

      It’s amazing to me we have filmed evidence of a key piece of evidence that has never been explained in any government investigation. Once again in this case we’re asked:

      Are you going to believe the official story or your own lying eyes?

      • Neil says:

        I agree 100%

        Assuming the DPD didn’t know who Oswald was and didn’t have any suspects for the Tippit shooting when the wallet was found, it’s incredible that a mysterious wallet found at or near the Tippit murder scene would’ve been viewed as having no evidentry value.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Neil,

          The wallet is “mysterious” to us but evidently not to the men examining it in the film, because the evidence indicates they decided it wasn’t relevant or important enough to call in to headquarters on one of the police radios right there at the scene. If that’s not the reason it wasn’t called in *immediately*, how do explain that?

          Westbrook’s written report, WC testimony, and interview for “No More Silence” mention no such wallet. Westbrook said that after Oswald’s arrest at the theater he asked Oswald his name and he refused to identify himself. He *didn’t* ask, “Are you Oswald or are you Hidell? I’ve got your two IDs right here.”

          As usual the frame-up squad is everywhere and as usual it does wacky things, like plant a wallet to frame Oswald and then right away get a host of people to cover it up and say nothing about it for decades.

      • John McAdams says:

        Anyone with a brain knows that a wallet found at a crime scene is entered in a police report, isn’t it?

        If it has no significance as evidence, no, it isn’t.

        That would be the case if it was quickly found to belong to somebody who was known, and was not in any way a suspect.

        If that’s true, then who the hell’s ID was it and why wasn’t it immediately followed up on by the DPD, the FBI, et al?

        Again, if it belonged to somebody on the scene who was not a suspect nor had any connection with the crime (except perhaps being a witness or somebody known to have arrived on the scene shortly after the shooting) there would be no need to “follow up.”

        You only “follow up” when there is something to follow up.

        The fact that it’s a mystery to us doesn’t mean it was a mystery to the cops on the scene.

        • mball says:

          If you find a wallet at a crime scene, you most ceratinly take it and tag it. Whether or not it’s evidence is determined later, not at the scene. If it belonged to someone at the scene, how do you know that it/they had no connection to the crime? If someone dropped it while the cops were there, I suppose you could return it then. Otherwise it goes.

        • bogman says:

          I think later corroboration by the FBI agent and the signed photo by the first DPD officer at the scene, it is very difficult to dismiss that the billfold was inconsequential to the case.

          As I think you’ve stated on occasion, John, CTs would question a photo of Oswald shooting from the sixth floor. This is a video and photographic record and corroborated personal recollection of something awry with a key piece of evidence. Not to mention Rookstool’s analysis that it matches the wallet in the archives.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            The Tippit scene wallet isn’t the wallet in the National Archives, as Rookstool argued.

            Comparison photos online show that the two wallets are NOT the same — they’re very similar but not identical. Look at the shape of the flaps (one with squared-off edges, one with tapered edges) and the length of the metal strip:

            http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2014/03/solving-tippit-murders-wallet-mystery.html

          • Bogman says:

            Jean, so your argument is that DPD and the FBI examined a wallet at the scene of the Tippit murder and it was meaningless as evidence so was never officially recorded. But it just happens to match the Oswald billfold in the archives so closely that an FBI analyst is fooled.

            Just want to be clear. Because if that’s your argument, I can’t buy it.

        • Jonathan says:

          John,

          Why did you write this? Anything found at a crime scene is of potential evidentiary significance. Be it blood, fingerprints, a wallet. Evidenciary significance may be inculpatory or exculpatory. Your comment makes no sense as a matter of law.

        • Neil says:

          “Again, if it belonged to somebody on the scene who was not a suspect nor had any connection with the crime (except perhaps being a witness or somebody known to have arrived on the scene shortly after the shooting) there would be no need to “follow up.””

          The only way I could see that as a plausible scenario is if the someone who somehow dropped a wallet near Tippit’s body was a Law Enforcement Officer.

          There’s no way a bystander’s wallet could be found at the scene of a serious crime and the bystander not be considered a potential witness or a suspect. Remember, until Oswald’s arrest at the Texas Theatre, there were no suspects.

          • John McAdams says:

            There’s no way a bystander’s wallet could be found at the scene of a serious crime and the bystander not be considered a potential witness or a suspect.

            Unless it was not “found” but rather the bystander took it out to identify himself.

          • Bogman says:

            John – But the wallet so closely matches the Oswald wallet In the archives that an FBI analyst is fooled? And the first responding officer and FBI agent both recall the wallet with Hidell ID?

    • Boston native says:

      Barret “Misremembered”?? Isn’t it also possible that it was Mr. Westbrook who “Misremebered” on purpose?

  12. Tom Scully says:

    No member of Dallas DPD filed a timely report describing recovery of a wwallet from suspect Oswald’s person. Various DPD officers made conflicting statments about recovery of a wallet from Oswald’s person. DPD Paul Bentley and an Hidell ID recovered in a wallet alongside Oswald ID from Oswald’s person was not recorded until Hill’s tetsimony on April 8,1964.
    Bentley himself had not mentioned Hidell ID in his TV interview, nor in any filed report. He was not on the record until June 11,1964.:
    https://www.google.com/#q=%22june+11%2C+1964%22+bookhout+bentley+hidell

    FBI Agent Clements filed a report describing Hidell ID he did not link the wallet to a DPD officer.
    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/clements.htm
    Mr. CLEMENTS. “…he was being taken out for a lineup. While he was gone I examined the contents of his wallet which was there on the desk, and identified to me as Oswald’s wallet. ”
    Images of this 23 Nov. FBI report:
    http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,9612.msg279540.html#msg279540

    In contrast, unimportant billfolds found at the Paine home by DPD were properly numbered and placed on a timely filed evidence list.: CE2003, #114 (brown) and #382 (red). “The” wallet went out of Dallas with with no evidence number in the dead of night (27 Nov.).:
    http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,9612.msg279445.html#msg279445
    Some believe the 27 Nov. wallet was secretly sent to the FBI lab in DC days earlier, and then back to Dallas.

    Since there is no timely chain of custody related to discovery anywhere of
    an Oswald wallet containing dual ID, this Tippit wallet seems a distraction.

    • Photon says:

      Dale Myers addressed this issue in March. WFAA lifted virtually all of the information in the report from his book without Dale’s approval or knowledge, despite a ” courtesy of Dale Myers” note during the report.

    • Dave Reinmuth says:

      Tom Scully wins the Kewpie doll. This wallet is NOT admissible in a court of law and should be disregarded as evidence. Period. Read John Armstrong’s “Harvey and Lee” to find all the evidence of subterfuge in the framing of Lee Oswald… Therefore there is no court admissible evidence connecting Oswald to the Mannlicher Carcano purchased by Alek Hidell…

  13. Phil Gurholt says:

    If the wallet was “planted” at the Tippet murder scene (big if),it would suggest that the post assassination “conspiracy plot” was not going according to plan whether or not Oswald was witting or unwitting. The “plant” may have been an in the moment decision by the plotters to tie Oswald to the Tippet murder scene (which had not gone according to plan or was not part of the plan). This was coupled with the strong possibility that Oswald was truly on the lamb from the plotters and was not likely to be apprehended by the authorities in the short term. Otherwise, the risk of Oswald carrying a wallet with him from the boarding house would be to great a risk to “plant” a second wallet at the Tippet murder scene. Especially if the plan was to have Oswald end up at the the theater to meet a contact, be killed, or be apprehended. The “planting of the wallet” scenario would suggest the plotters didn’t expect Oswald to be carrying a wallet to the theater. The “wallet planting” only makes sense if the theater climax was a random event. For me the only other plausible explanation is the “planting of the wallet” was a miscalculation given that Oswald could have also been carrying a wallet. An Oswald wallet at the Tippet scene and a second one in Oswald’s possession at the theater does present a problem for the sole assassin believers. Certainly all can agree that a person does not carry two wallets at one time.
    Others will present the idea that there were “two Oswalds” in the theater or Oswald’s behavior in the theater suggested he thought he was meeting an unknown contact. I am not convinced. I believe it was a random hiding place for a person who knew he was in deep trouble. Some have argued Oswald’s planned destination was Ruby’s nearby house. If true, Oswald probably had realized that going there was a death sentence. While sitting in the theater he probably was feeling at loss on what next to do next. Being this befuddled might help explain why he forgot to pay for his movie ticket.

    • Bill Pierce says:

      Phil Gurholt writes:
      “I believe it (the theater) was a random hiding place for a person who knew he was in deep trouble. Some have argued Oswald’s planned destination was Ruby’s nearby house. If true, Oswald probably had realized that going there was a death sentence.”

      I’ve been a conspiracist since 11/24/63. I believe Oswald killed Tippit . . . but did not take a shot at Kennedy.

      My POV: Oswald had a wallet with two IDs because he thought he would need a fake ID during and after his prearranged escape from Dallas. The escape involved others and the rendezvous point was Ruby’s apartment or nearby. [Oswald was walking in that direction when he encountered Tippit.]

      Tippit was on an errand from Ruby to change the rendezvous. Everyone knows what that means. Ruby was double-crossing Oswald. Oswald smelled a trap. I think it’s probable that Oswald took out his wallet and showed Tippit his Hidell ID as proof that he wasn’t Oswald. That didn’t work.

      Oswald dropped his wallet as he fumbled to access his pistol. Police found the wallet at the crime scene. They carried it to the Texas Theater and then claimed they removed it from Oswald’s back pocket. Police botched the chain of custody and then covered their asses.

      [The Dallas cops were completely unprepared for the global spotlight. Indeed, in 1963 no police force would have looked very competent under such scrutiny. Imagine LAPD. The Dallas cops made a thousand mistakes. Gotta be careful not to frame those mistakes as conspiracies.]

    • John McAdams says:

      Being this befuddled might help explain why he forgot to pay for his movie ticket.

      Could be, or it could be that he would have had to get the attention of Julia Postal, who was out of the box office on the sidewalk watching the cop cars rush by.

      Getting her attention might have seemed risky, and maybe it was less risky just to slip in.

      Had Johnny Calvin Brewer not been following him, it might have succeeded.

  14. Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

    The wallet was the key evidence to identify Oswald as Hidell, who was the alias used for purchasing both a rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods (Chicago,IL) and a handgun from Seaport Traders (L.A., CA). It’s surprising Oswald ordered them by mail months apart, but they were shipped on the same date (WC Report, pp. 121 and 174). More surprising, as Jim DiEugenio has noted, the paperwork is missing! Since the weapons were ordered in Hidell’s name, but the box office was rented by Oswald in his own, how could he get the packages? It was mandatory to show an ID for such out of the State transactions, and if Oswald identified himself as Hidell, why there isn’t any testimony by the post office’s employees on such an easy-to-recall fact?

    • Jonathan says:

      Furthermore, the only record of “Oswald’s” purchase transaction from Klein’s was on Klein’s microfilm. The FBI lost, we’re told, the microfilm; it never was returned to Klein’s.

      All that exists is a photograph of no provenance of an order form from Oswald to Klein’s. That order form does not exist. Nor does the microfilm from which it was allegedly photographed.

      That’s called no chain of custody.

      There’s NO WAY the rifle at the national archives gets admitted against Oswald in a trial

      • Gerry Simone says:

        I’m going to check out Jean Davison’s links above and Krusch’s books.

        (Some of the above responses are real good too).

      • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

        You´re right, Jonathan, moreover if he rifle attributed to LHO is not the one ordered by him according to the FBI. The latter was a 36″ Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, but DPD “found” a 40″ short rifle. To cap it all, Klein’s did not put scopes on this rifle and we all know DPD found it with a scope.

        • John McAdams says:

          You have no evidence that proves your speculative point, the burden of proof lies with you.

          Sorry, but that’s not the way it works. If you say it proves something sinister, you have to prove that no prosaic explanation is adequate. Otherwise, you have proven nothing.

          You are not allowed to just posit some conspiratorial explanation, and then it’s assumed to be true until proven false.

  15. Photon says:

    Jonathan, what is your real name?
    What state do you reside in?
    Are you a trial lawyer?
    Do you know who my classmate Steven Harper is and his views on law schools?

    • Jonathan says:

      Jonathan G. Tidd
      Attorney
      admitted via bar exam in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New York
      widely published tax lawyer
      member TRUSTS & ESTATES Editorial Advisory Board
      nationally recognized tax lawyer
      practiced general law 1973-76
      many CLE presentations
      B.S.E.E. UIUC (1967)
      J.D. UIUC (1973)
      CLU and ChFC designations
      DLIEC (1970-71)
      USAIC, Fort Huachuca (MOS 8966, 1971)
      Viet Nam (15 Sep 1971 – 14 Sep 1972)

      Now, how about you, Photon.

      • B kamp says:

        Yes Photon, time to come clean

      • Jonathan says:

        Correction: USAICS, Fort Huachuca, AZ (MOS 8666, 1971)

        Domicile: Connecticut

        Trial experience: 1973-76 represented individuals in civil and criminal trials in Illinois.

        Once again, how about you, Photon?

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Very impressive record Jonathan! I salute you.

        (My cousin is a CLU, ChFC and T.E.P. among other credentials, but not an attorney).

      • Brian H says:

        Well done Jonathan! Let’s see if the Brave Mr Photon reveals himself lol. One quick nugget Gerald Hemming and his wife in an interview with Noel Twyman revealed that he worked for Kleins sports in Chicago for a while What a Coincidence huh?

        • Photon says:

          I am an Officer in a professional corporation in Northern Virginia that contracts for services with the Federal government. By law the nature of those services must remain confidential.
          Due to the nature of prior Federal service I have professional contacts with members of several Federal agencies and give expert consultation in several fields , including national security.
          As you are aware I was an Officer in the Armed Forces; I come from a long line of Officers who have served this country.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Photon, with what is clearly a high level security clearance, do you have access to data mining done by the NSA? In which case, might you have access to information on commenters participating on this site? Or would you argue that no one should be concerned if they have “nothing to hide?” Can you access private emails? Listen in on phone calls? Track citizens by satellite? Does your reach extend across the pond?

          • Jonathan says:

            So, Photon, your paycheck comes directly or indirectly from the federal government. Welcome to the club.

            Except I’m independent of the U.S. Government. I’m just a tax adviser to a U.S. entity.

            You on the other hand get your paycheck directly or indirectly from the U.S. Government.

            Give it up, Photon. You have revealed your bias. Your loyalty is to the U.S. Government. Not to the facts.

          • Photon says:

            Loyalty to the government is loyalty to the facts.After all, the government is of the people,by the people, for the people.If it wasn’t for the government you would not have clean water, safe meat to eat, sanitation and safe medical care.You would not have modern roads or reliable air transportation.
            Is there anything wrong with trying to set the record straight and educating the public with the facts as they were elucidated by professional Federal agencies that actually know what they are doing?

          • JSA says:

            So Photon is a Keynesian after all! Congratulations. I agree that without government, you couldn’t have a functioning society. Where we disagree I think is that I believe that government is susceptible to corruption, by the corporations and for the corporations. It has to have checks and balances, and remain open to the public, especially as this pertains to fifty year old CIA files. Because as Photon reminds us, our government is owned by “We the People”. Not “wee sheeple” powerless to ask fundamental questions and expect honest answers from those who serve us, right?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Photon, you remark …. “Loyalty to the government is loyalty to the facts….”

            Are you referring to facts produced by the government sanctioned Warren Commission Report, the HSCA Report as evidence that Federal agencies knew what they were doing? If so, I believe that you suffer from a condition known as “blind loyalty.” Programming and or propaganda can instill blind loyalty; in a democracy, critical thinking is the act of a loyal citizen.

            You further ask: is there anything wrong with trying to set the record straight and educating the public with the facts as they were elucidated by professional Federal agencies that actually know what they are doing?

            We The People, which includes you photon, do not “benefit” from government; we have devised our government to serve the needs of everyone, rich poor, educated and non, privileged and struggling .. not the reverse. If you do not understand that concept, we are not living in the same democracy.

          • Jonathan says:

            Photon, to put things another way, you’ve reveled the hand that feeds you. Everyone here knows you’re not going to bite it.

            Why should anyone here give credence to what you say on the matter of whether the U.S. Government covered up the JFK assassination?

            For all anyone here knows based on what you’ve written here about yourself, you come here with inside knowledge to mislead and deceive. That’s a distinct possibility from where I sit.

          • Jonathan says:

            Photon,

            You aver:

            “As you are aware I was an Officer in the Armed Forces; I come from a long line of Officers who have served this country.”

            I was unaware of your military service. You’ve never revealed your military service.

            How did you obtain your officer commission: ROTC, OCS, West Point or other service academy?

            If you were an army officer, what was your MOS?

            C’mon Photon. You’ve played everyone here. Let’s see your hand.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Jonathan, before I forget and before this exchange is lost in the mists of time, you most probably have encountered Harvey Dale or Chuck Feeney?

        • Photon says:

          Never heard of them. But I have shopped at Southdale and met Chuck (Charlie) Finley, the greatest showman since Bill Veeck.

  16. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Getting back to the basic’s of Mr. Simpich’s article. I guess some would conclude the Tippit Murder scene wins 3-1. DPD Sgt. Croy tells interviewer he was handed wallet by unknown man. DPD Cpt. Westbrook on camera with wallet. FBI Barrett, “know Oswald, Hidell?, Bentley finding wallet hogwash. Only Bentley regarding finding “it” at the Texas Theater?
    In the MFF link to his WC testimony Bentley says he removed the wallet on the way to HQ, obtained identification, later turned over to Lt. Baker (was Marion Baker a Lt.?).
    Somewhere back down the years I thought I read they questioned him in the car on the way back to HQ if he was Oswald or Hidell and that he refused to answer. Also that later early in interrogation he responded to the same question, “you figure it out”. I don’t think I’m dreaming. Can anybody help out here?
    If the DPD Capt. and Sgt. and the FBI officer were handling/talking about a Oswald and Hidell wallet, why o why was no report of such filed?
    If All these Peace Officers are being truthful, there were at least two wallets.

  17. Burgundy says:

    Folks, there’s a chain here… and it’s the Hidell ID. That ID tied Oswald to the supposed assassination weapon found in the TSBD. Why would he carry that? Why would he drop that? And why wasn’t that wallet found at the Tippit shooting, shown in detail in the WPAA tv clip and later convincingly IDed as the wallet found in the archives, reported? We KNOW the FBI has a solid history of rewriting reports from witnesses in this case, so it appears obvious to me that the wallet found at the Tippit murder scene was “erased” by the FBI. By the way, there is also a lot of questions regarding Westbrook, who is a strong candidate for bringing the wallet to the Tippit scene. Why wasn’t it found before he arrived? A cop is shot and his wallet is lying there and Westbrook ends up with it?

    So who is Westbrook? According to the Armstrong Harvey/Lee cite there is a
    strong indication he may have been CIA.

    According to Armstrong…

    QUOTE ON:

    While (LEE) Oswald was hiding in the balcony, and (HARVEY) Oswald was
    sitting in the 4th row in the lower level, Captain Westbrook allegedly
    found a wallet at the scene of Tippit’s murder. There was a wallet and it
    contained identification for Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hidell, including
    a Texas drivers license for Lee Harvey Oswald. FBI agent Bob Barrett saw
    the wallet and WFAA-TV took newsreel film of the wallet. Who found the
    wallet?

    (On the website, a frame from WFAA newsreel footage is shown).

    Eight or nine people walked to Tippit’s patrol car and saw him lying on
    the street. Two ambulance attendants removed Tippit’s body. Numerous DPD
    officers arrived at the scene before Westbrook arrived. But none of these
    people, not one civilian witness, not the ambulance attendants, not any of
    the trained police officers, reported seeing a wallet laying on an
    otherwise empty street. Without proof that someone, anyone, found the
    wallet and handed it to Capt. Westbrook there is a distinct possibility
    that Westbrook brought the wallet to the scene of Tippit’s murder. After
    the assassination, Capt. Westbrook retired from the Dallas Police and
    served as a special advisor to the police in South Vietnam (nearly all
    “special advisors” to the police in Vietnam were CIA connected).

    A DPD dispatch at 1:33 PM: “w/m/30 5’8″, very slender build, black hair, a
    white jacket, white shirt and dark slacks.” A DPD dispatch at 1:45 PM:
    “Have information a suspect just went in the Texas Theater on West
    Jefferson … supposed to be hiding in balcony.” As police began to
    descend on the Texas Theater they were told by a “young female” (probably
    Julia Postal) that the man was in the balcony. As several DPD officers
    began searching the balcony Deputy Sheriff Bill Courson came face to face
    with a young man who was walking down the stairs to the lobby. Courson
    said, “that he was reasonably satisfied in his own mind” that this man was
    (LEE) Oswald. While Courson was walking up the front stairs to the
    balcony, the police, and Captain Westbrook, were entering the main floor
    from the rear entrance. The last DPD dispatch reported the suspect was
    wearing a white shirt, white jacket, and was in the balcony. The suspect
    (LEE Oswald) in the balcony was wearing a white t-shirt, but had left his
    light colored jacket under a car at Ballew’s T exaco Station.

    HARVEY Oswald, wearing a long-sleeved brown shirt, is arrested

    Captain Westbrook apparently told DPD officers at 10th & Patton that Lee
    Harvey Oswald was a suspect. Inside the darkened theater Tommy Rowe (not
    Johnny Brewer), directed the police to the man wearing the long sleeved
    dark shirt–HARVEY Oswald. Rowe was a close friend of Jack Ruby and worked
    at the shoe store with Brewer. The police soon arrested and handcuffed
    (HARVEY) Oswald. Capt. Westbrook told the officers “get him out of here as
    fast as you can and don’t let anybody see him.” DON’T LET ANYBODY SEE
    HIM!! Why?

    As HARVEY Oswald was taken out the front of the theater a DPD officer told
    Julia Postal, “we have our man on both counts.” Julia said this was the
    first time she heard of Tippit’s death and the officers arresting Oswald
    had identified him by calling his name — “Oswald” (interview with Julia
    Postal by SA Carter 2/28/64). Several police officers knew the name of
    their suspect before leaving 10th & Patton, thanks to Captain Westbrook.
    Three police officers were ordered to obtain the names and addresses of
    all theater patrons. This list soon disappeared, and the possibility of
    learning the identity of Oswald’s contact at the theater, and the identity
    of the man confronted by Deputy Sheriff Courson, disappeared with it.

    (HARVEY) Oswald, wearing a brown shirt, was brought out the front entrance
    of the Texas Theater, placed in a police car and driven to jail. Paul
    Bentley removed (HARVEY) Oswald’s wallet from his left rear pocket en
    route to the DPD headquarters (along with Officers Carrol, Hill, Walker
    and Lyons) and found identification for “Lee Harvey Oswald” and “A. J.
    Hidell”–similar to the identification found in the wallet that was left
    at the Tippit murder scene. The Dallas Police were now in possession of
    two wallets, both containing ID for Lee Harvey Oswald. These two wallets
    could have created serious problems if properly identified as evidence and
    reported. It should come as no surprise that Capt. Westbrook’s wallet
    disappeared, after DPD Capt. Fritz gave it to FBI agent Hosty on 11/27/63,
    and one of the Oswalds (LEE) disappeared as well. For a thorough
    discussion of how the FBI and the Dallas Police deliberately mishandled
    this evidence, read John Armstrong’s 1997 Dallas Conference speech (linked
    on the home page).

    NOTE: There were a total of five Oswald wallets: a black plastic wallet
    (CE 1798); a red billfold found at Ruth Paine’s (CE 2003 #382); a brown
    billfold found at Ruth Paine’s (CE 2003 #114); a billfold taken from LHO
    upon arrest–initialed by HMM (Henry Moore), wallet and contents
    inventoried and photographed; and the Westbrook wallet, which was not
    initialed by police, not listed in inventory, not photographed, not
    mentioned by a single witness to the WC, HSCA, ARRB, etc. and disappeared,
    but not before is was filmed by WFAA TV and seen by FBI agent Barrett.

    As (HARVEY) Oswald was en route to the police station, Bernard Haire,
    owner of a hobby shop two doors from the theater, saw the police escort a
    man out the rear of the theater. For the next 25 years Mr. Haire and other
    witnesses thought they had seen the arrest of Oswald. But there is no
    police report, no record of arrest, nor any mention of a person taken out
    the rear of the theater. There are, however, many police reports that
    state Oswald was arrested in the balcony. The police homicide report of
    Tippit’s murder read, “suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the
    Texas neater at 231 W. Jefferson.”

    See the Dallas Police Homicide Report for “Tippitt, JD”

    At least two other DPD documents make the same “error.” In his report to
    Captain Gannaway, Dallas Police Detective L.D. Stringfellow wrote: “On
    November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the
    Texas Theater, 231 West Jefferson Blvd and was charged with the murder of
    President John F. Kennedy and the murder of Officer JD Tippit.” How could
    several experienced, career police officers make such a mistake?

    QUOTE OFF

    Armstrong’s site is at:

    http://harveyandlee….November_22.htm
    modify_inline.gif

    • Jim Glover says:

      Good post Burgandy, just one thing.
      According to the Usher, it was Lee who was taken out the front and found on the main floor while the lookalike in the Balcony was taken out the back door. If you look at it the way the usher, Butch Burrows, reported it all makes sense to me. Lee Oswald was killed by Ruby who knew Lee unless someone can prove me wrong. I think Marina and Oswald’s mom knew who the real Lee was. Yet there were several look-alikes and other impostors in Mexico for confusion even if Oswald was there in Mexico City, including all the reports of other Lee Oswald impostors even in Alice Texas. Counter intel’s “blame everything on Russia” wanted Oswald in Mexico as the excuse to cover-up everything for the ploy to prevent world war 3. Which got LBJ and Hoover and CIA counter intel off the hook to hide their knowledge behind “saving the world” and “National Security”.

      So the confusion of the cover-up needed Oswald in Mexico and at the same time also Oswald impostors to claim he was not in Mexico in order for the National Security excuse for the coup’s coverup.

      As far as LBJ pretended to be worried about, Oswald in the Russian embassy meant Russia ordered Oswald to kill JFK… but LBJ did not want a War with Russia or even questions about it that would blow the cover-up… so we get CIA and FBI counter intel saying he was there and no he wasn’t. Confusion and doubles with stolen ID’s is another aspect of Allen Dulles’s famous “Hiding in Plain Site” spy method and our best researchers get caught up fighting each other over one version or the other without realizing the confusion was necessary to get away with murder and the cover-up was the coup, while the shooters were just hired guns.

  18. But its not just Barrett who says it was Oswald’s wallet.

    That is a ploy used by Myers.

    Its also Jez and Westbrook.

    And Rookstool’s analysis seems pretty good to me.

    Oswald killed a police officer and then left his ID there at the scene near the pool of blood?

    Nope.

    Oswald carried around three wallets with him?

    Why?

    Third option: someone dropped the wallet at the scene to incriminate Oswald. Purpose: to inflame the DPD, since the plotters knew the murder of JFK would mean little to them. But killing a cop would drive them batty. This is McBride’s thesis and he backs it up with evidence through interviews.

    Dale Myers can try and wish this one away all day. Just like he never explains how Oswald picked up the revolver at REA when there is no evidence he was alerted to it being there.

    Its not going away Dale.

    • Jonathan says:

      No one in the DPD tried to kill Oswald as retaliation for the Tippit killing. Suggests strongly to me the DPD had no reason to believe Oswald killed Tippet.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        It’s been postulated that THAT was Tippit’s job but he didn’t or couldn’t follow through on the deed (I myself don’t mean to incriminate him but there’s a story about Tippit being seen before his demise at a coffee shop making a last minute phone call, etc.).

  19. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I’ve not read all of it yet but this discussion of the wallet(s) from a few years ago is quite interesting in the first few pages.
    Note there are 12 pages with some long posts in them.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4572&page=1

  20. Brian H says:

    Bottom line gang you can all continue to insult each other however if you calm down and look at the Facts 1. No struggle 2. Gun hidden in back and in the belt 3. Firing a weapon does not create enough movement to dislodge a wallet from one pocket and 4. Don’t automatically assume any one was telling the truth about who’s wallet it actually was seriously we all know the amount of lies told by now!
    For we know it could have been Billy the thirteen year old neighbor six houses down unless that wallet was photo’d with Oswalds pic in it then the whole thing is sketchy at BEST!!!!!

  21. Bill Simpich says:

    Note to moderator: The previous comment was posted a little prematurely. The comment below encompasses my entire statement.

    A related issue to the wallet is how all of the contemporaneous reports on 11/22/63 are silent on the name of “Hidell”.

    Only on the 23rd did the “Hidell” name emerge in public, and it was only after the FBI allegedly discovered in the early morning hours of the 23rd that Hidell had mail-ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano and had the rifle delivered to Oswald’s post office box address.

    From the 23rd on, most of the witnesses who wrote reports on the 22nd gradually remembered that Hidell’s ID was in Oswald’s wallet.

    Cops are trained to include all relevant data in their reports. It’s hard to think of anything more relevant than the Hidell ID.

    To my mind, either all these witnesses were given a secret order to not mention the Hidell name (unlikely) or the Hidell ID was only mentioned by Westbrook at the Tippit murder scene and then covered up until the right moment (more likely).

    The Hidell story should be a follow-up article to the wallet story. Robert Charles-Dunne did a good round-up on this years ago at the Education Forum. Here it is:

    So what did Bentley’s report of the arrest say about the suspect’s ID? “On the way to the city hall I removed the suspect’s wallet and obtained the name…. 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, or two weeks after the event, itself a rather disquieting delay in filing a report that itself stipulates he went to Westbrook’s office to file a report immediately after the arrest. Perhaps he did write another report on 11/22/63 and nobody has been able to locate it in the past 42 years. Perhaps you will suggest that his memory was far sharper after 35 years than it was after 14 days? [I will attempt to upload the 2nd page of this report, which deals with the post-arrest trip downtown, so you can comb it for any mention of "Hidell" ID and let me know what you find.]

    So, OK: Bentley failed to mention finding ID in Oswald’s alias. But other officers did. Gerald Hill told the WC that Bentley had found the ID while en route to DPD HQ, but was uncertain about the name, recalling only that it was the same name that had been used to order the rifle. However, on the very day of the “Hidell” ID’s discovery upon the suspect, mere hours after it occurred, here’s what Gerry Hill told NBC TV:

    HILL: The only way we found out what his name was was to remove his billforld 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.

    Bentley’s failure to remember the “Hidell” incident must have been contagious. Hill caught it fast, though he recovered in time for his testimony. CT Walker, as noted earlier, failed to hear anything about Hidell while sitting right beside Oswald when the ID was allegedly found in Oswald’s wallet. Nevertheless, he told the WC that when they got to the DPD HQ, Oswald “was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A.J. Hidell on it.”

    Please avail yourself of the reports filed by Walker, and K.E. Lyons, and Bob Carroll and let me know if any of the five arresting officers mention anything about finding “Hidell” ID on the day of the event. Perhaps you can also suggest why all five had instant amnesia. You might also explain how it came to be that having had his wallet removed by Bentley, who reported that he gave it to Lt. Baker, Oswald seems to have had his wallet returned to him, even though he was still hand-cuffed with his hands behind his back.

    Richard Stovall testified that he and Gus Rose were talking with Oswald prior to Captain Fritz commencing the interrogation. Stovall said that he asked Oswald his name, and Oswald told him “Oswald.” Stovall noted that the suspect had his billfold and it included “Hidell” ID. At that point, Fritz entered and sent Stovall and Rose out to Irving to check the Paine home.

    Five days after Stovall testified to these facts, Rose was called and asked about this series of events. Rose said that when he and Stovall asked the suspect his name, he replied “Hidell.” Rose claimed that he found ID in the billfold in both names. Needless to say, the WC didn’t trouble itself to reconcile the diametrically opposed testimonies of Stovall and Rose regarding what the suspect told them. But then, the same WC staff didn’t seem to question the absolute absence in the DPD reports of any indication that the word “Hidell” was ever uttered on that day.

    Helpful, but problematic corroboration came from another detective, Walter Potts, who told the Commission that soon after 2 pm he was dispatched to “go out to Oswald’s or Hidell’s or Oswald’s room…. On his person – he must have had – he did have identification with the name Alex Hidell and Oswald.” Potts claimed that when he got to the Beckley boarding house, he and and his fellow officers – which included Justice of the Peace David Johnston , who would preside over LHO’s arraingments – were told by housekeeper Earlene Roberts and the Johnsons, who owned the house, that none of them knew “a Lee Harvey Oswald or an Alex Hidell either one.” When questioned, Roberts and the Johnsons admitted having been asked about an “Oswald” but made no mention of “Hidell.”

    Interestingly, JP David Johnston was involved with police all day long, and in his own report referred to an Oswald alias – O.H. Lee – under which he’d rented his boarding house room. Despite having been present when Potts, et al, asked after Oswald or Hidell, Johnston too suffered from the contagious amnesia regarding that name.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Thanks again for posting this. The link I posted above is the one you mention Mr. Dunes comments come from. Probably the best analysis of this subject I’ve read to date. Ron Ecker’s comments were relevant and interesting along with Jack White. I never knew Jack consulted on Harvey and Lee, bless his memory.

      • Bill Simpich says:

        Thanks, Ronnie, for posting the link that included Mr. Dunne’s comment. It’s relatively short, and hits many of the key points.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Bill Simpich: I don’t want to detract from the primary significance of your post, but it’s an opportunity to pursue this:

      “Interestingly, JP David Johnston was involved with police all day long, and in his own report referred to an Oswald alias – O.H. Lee – under which he’d rented his boarding house room. Despite having been present when Potts, et al, asked after Oswald or Hidell, Johnston too suffered from the contagious amnesia regarding that name.”

      Johnston presents an interesting line of inquiry. As you point out, ‘he was involved all day long,’ all the more interesting because he was from Precinct 2 in what was at the time Far North Dallas, in the northern most quadrant of the county. His presence at the Dallas Trade Mart in anticipation of the luncheon and Kennedy’s speech made him easily accessible; he was readily identified by a police officer and rushed to Parkland.

      When he arrived, JP Theron Ward was already there, evidently having had his radio open when a call came out; he must have been in the vicinity as well because his Precinct 3, Garland, which bordered JP David Johnston’s Richardson was at minimum a 30 minute drive from Parkland, perhaps even longer in 1963 because Central Expressway had not yet been widened (and Ward would have had to cross through downtown adding another 15 minutes), LBJ Freeway was under construction, so Northwest Highway would have been the alternative loop around to connect with Harry Hines Blvd, the most direct route South to Parkland (the toll road had not yet opened). It would have been impossible for Ward to reach Parkland before Johnston who came from the Trade Mart, only minutes away. Ergo, Ward was conveniently “in the vicinity,” but not at the Trade Mart that I can find.

      There were ten precincts in Dallas County in 1963. Why were other justices of the peace not called? Perhaps they were out of pocket, but it would have made far more legal sense for the JP representing downtown or Oak Cliff to have been immediately involved. Several sources suggest that the officer happened to recognize Johnston at the mart, and others say that Ward was ‘nearby.’ But where were the other eight, particularly in light of the fact that the Mart and Parkland were far closer to downtown in precincts presided over by residents much closer into town than either Garland or Richardson.

      What I believe may well be significant is that Precincts 2 and 3 were home of two large military contractors, Texas Instruments and Collins Radio. Executives and employees would have resided primarily in those voting precincts, all of whom had already begun to benefit from the contracts in anticipation of the escalation of military activity in Vietnam. I posit that if any Justice of the Peace could have been pressured in the slightest fashion, it would have been both Johnston and Ward.

      Note that even Bugliosi opines that Ward was a “young justice of the peace . . .. Too timid to buck the medical examiner . . .” And Dr. Charles Crenshaw notes that in spite of Henry Wade’s opinion that a “missile” must be taken into evidence, “the judge [Theron Ward] mysteriously ignores the advice of the two Texas officials … and releases the body to Kellerman.” Crenshaw continues: “Without saying a word, Ward simply points to the exit, allowing Kellerman to begin removal of the body and all evidence associated therewith. Texas law was breached and a critical link in the investigative process violated.”

  22. bcmarshall says:

    I have spoken to Bob Barrett extensively about his movements and actions during and after the assassination. He was very forthright about his conclusions, and I have absolutely no doubt that he is telling the truth. The wallet found at the Tippit murder scene contained ID with the names of Oswald and Hidell in it. It’s interesting that if it had not been for TV footage it would have been possible to deny the very existence of the wallet, but when that became impossible they went with the next best story. It belonged to Tippit.

    Bob and I have talked for quite a few hours in several conversations. He spoke about it in the first convo, and I brought it up again in our most recent talk. I’d like to share with you verbatim what was said.

    Me- Another question is regarding finding the wallet at the Tippit murder scene. Did you speak about that to your fellow agents or other people in the office?

    BB- Well, I talked to Lee (Ivan Lee) about it. He was my partner. I don’t remember talking to anyone else particularly about it because the way it was handled by the police department I just figured they didn’t have any use for it.

    Me- Uh huh. You know, that still bothers the hell out of me. I don’t know why, but–

    BB- Well, it bothers the hell out of me, too, because the way it was handled by the police department was completely wrong. They lost the entire chain of evidence because that wallet–well, they said later it wasn’t Oswald’s–but it WAS Oswald’s. There’s no doubt in my mind that it was, nor in the mind of (unintelligible).

    Me- I’m really glad I spoke to you personally about that because there’s no doubt in my mind, from speaking to you, of what it was either. They were these…well, I consider them smokescreens…or something that, well, it was Tippit’s wallet, you know.

    BB- They screwed up the handling of it. It was found by a citizen first, and was given to a police officer, who gave it to another police officer, who gave it to Westbrook. He had it, and then it ends up in Bentley’s hands, and Bentley supposedly takes it out of Oswald’s pocket in the car, but hell, he had it in his hands the whole time. Oswald didn’t have it after he left the Tippit shooting.

    Personal note: Bob Barrett is a straight arrow type of man. I honestly got the impression that if anyone ever even suggested to him that he should falsify a report or leave something out intentionally they’d be picking their teeth up off the ground. He does not believe in any conspiracy. LHO killed both Tippit and JFK in his mind, yet he still struggles to this day with what he knows about the wallet. I may ask him about the possibility of it having been placed there to incriminate LHO at a later time, but I have not up to now. I just wanted to make that clear before continuing with our conversation.

    Me- OOOOHHHH! I get it! I understand now. I didn’t see that piece of the puzzle until you just said it just then. So you’re saying it went back to Bentley.

    BB- Yeah, Bentley somehow got a hold of it…I’m sure Westbrook gave it to Bentley, probably to introduce as evidence, and Bentley had it in the car. He said he reaches in Oswald’s pocket and comes up with a wallet. Well, it’s impossible because the wallet was back at the scene of the crime.

    Me- Oh. That’s very enlightening. I really appreciate that.

    BB- Westbrook asked me questions, like do you know a guy named Oswald, do you know a guy named Hidell, and I didn’t know either one of them. But he was holding the wallet at the time. Why would he ask me those questions unless he was looking at those names?

    Me- Of course. There’s no other explanation for it.

    BB- And then the wallet was pictured in the TV pictures.

    At this point we went on to other things, but I wanted to share what he said, and his belief that it was the same wallet that was later “found” in LHO’s pocket by Bentley. That’s a whole new light on the subject in my opinion.

    • Jean Davison says:

      bcmarshall,

      No one is accusing Barrett of lying. I’m sure he’s telling the truth as he recalls it. I’m arguing that his memory is unreliable. There’s even a possible indication of that in your interview, when he said, “It was found by a citizen first, and was given to a police officer, who gave it to another police officer, who gave it to Westbrook.” According to Hosty’s book, Barrett told Hosty that *Westbrook* found the wallet near the pool of blood where Tippit had fallen.

      Hard as it may be to believe, it’s not unusual for memories to change. It’s common and perfectly normal. Studies have shown that once a new version of a memory has formed in our minds, it’s just as real to us as the original one was. That’s a pretty scary thought, I know, but if you Google “memories change over time,” here’s what you get:

      https://www.google.com/#q=memories+change+over+time&safe=off

      • bcmarshall says:

        It’s easy to just assume that his memory is unreliable, especially if it doesn’t fit what you want to hear, but I simply don’t believe he’s wrong. He’s been reliving these events for 50 years. This wasn’t just a peripheral event, like asking what he had for breakfast that day. This was critical, something that stood out in his mind like a blinking red light.

        I can’t prove his memory is reliable any more than you can prove that it isn’t. I can only tell you that my discussions with him have left no doubt in my mind that this was burned indelibly into his mind.

        He has repeated the citizen to officer to officer to Westbrook to me on several occasions. I don’t know what another author might have said about what HE recollected Barrett saying. I have his interviews in which he has clearly repeated the same thing more than once.

        You’re not taking into account that Hosty, though a good friend of and carpool companion of Barrett, may be the one misremembering. Hosty did not have the experience, and to him it’s repeating words. To Barrett it’s an unforgettable event.

        For what it’s worth there’s no way I believe he’s wrong based on many hours of conversation. I have no proof, but it’s a very strong conviction I have.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        According to Michael T. Griffith’s article, Barrett insisted that he was told it was Oswald’s wallet as he was asked by a police officer at the scene if he knew Oswald or Hiddel.

        Barrett’s memory doesn’t seem to budge on this specific detail.

      • Paulf says:

        Jean:

        The anti-conspiracy crowd say the same thing for every witness who says things that refute the lone gunman theory.

        Witnesses can be unreliable. Recollections can change.

        But the argument you and photon and McAdams keep making is generic. If you were consistent with this theory, you would have to discount every witness making a personal recollection, including ones who say things you agree with. But of course you don’t treat this principle with any consistency.

        Put another way, the fact that witnesses in general often make mistakes is not a legitimate argument against any witness in particular, as your “team” seems to think. If it were, testimony would be limited to recording devices.

        If you have reason that this particular man has remembered wrong, then by all means say it. But it is tiring to hear the same meaningless and inconsistent arguments being made over and over again by people who have no real facts on their side.

        • John McAdams says:

          If you have reason that this particular man has remembered wrong, then by all means say it.

          That’s what Jean has been doing on this thread, and what I do all the time.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Paulf and others,

          It doesn’t matter how certain Barrett is or how honest he is. Please read some of the research at the Google link I posted and elsewhere online.
          The idea that important or shocking events are forever etched in our memory is an illusion, and being certain of a memory doesn’t at all guarantee its accuracy. I can’t stress enough that this is not my OPINION, it’s what memory research has shown, over and over again.

          The test of ANY witness’s memory is how well it fits with the other evidence and whether or not it makes sense. So far, no one here has explained how Barrett’s 30-year-old recollection could possibly make sense.

          Finding a suspect’s ID at a murder scene is a big deal. It would have tied Oswald and his alias to the scene conclusively. Why didn’t the police immediately call the dispatcher with this important information? They examined the wallet closely … and did nothing. Why?

          The excuse given 30 years later by Barrett smacks of rationalization. “Because too many cops had handled it”? Really? The cops on the scene immediately worried about chain of custody?

          Instead of reporting it, someone handed the wallet to Bentley at the theater saying, I suppose, “Here, claim you got this out of his back pocket.” And Bentley apparently says, in effect, “Sure, no problem”?? Everybody falls in line in this wacky scheme and nobody mentions it for three decades — that’s what I’m supposed to believe?

          I’m sorry, but I prefer to believe that after so many years Barrett simply misremembered when and where Westbrook asked him about the names in Oswald’s wallet — not at the Tippit scene, but later, probably at the police station after they’d looked at the contents of his wallet.

          Now I ask you, folks, which version makes more sense?

          • Neil Hodges says:

            Jean,
            Firstly, at the time of Oswald’s arrest, Barrett may not have mentioned hearing about Oswald/Hiddell at the Tippit murder scene because he didn’t think it was significant. And he likely wasn’t aware of any discrepancy until the Warren Report was published.

            Secondly, it’s not as if Barrett is the only source for the claim that Oswald’s wallet was found at the Tippit murder scene. If all we had was Barrett’s recollection, then yes, I agree with you. Unfortunately, there’s the TV footage(showing policemen inspecting an unidentified wallet), and officer’s Croy and Jez corroborating parts of Barrett’s story.

            Even then, I’m not totally convinced that an Oswald wallet found by Tippit’s body but at this point, it doesn’t seem too far fetched that this could’ve happened and not been documented.

            There are dozens of examples of the Dallas PD not operating by the book on 11/22/63 in terms of documenting evidence or documenting the names of persons of interest so it’s not implausible that due to police negligence there was a break in the evidence chain for Oswald’s wallet. These weren’t petty crimes they were dealing with and Oswald wasn’t a typical murder suspect. The events of that day were very fluid and the DPD was likely unprepared for what transpired that day.

            On the otherhand, the contemporary documentation and testimony relating to Oswald’s wallets and IDs is suspicious and lacking consistency. Therefore it can’t be ruled out(yet) that the DPD and the FBI knew about these discrepancies at the time and covered them up.

          • Paulf says:

            Jean:

            Your explanation basically is that the story as recounted doesn’t fit your preferred narrative,so it can’t be true.

            Yes, the story is puzzling, but there are a lot of explanations, such as the one you don’t want to consider: that the wallet was somehow planted to frame Oswald. There are all kinds of inconsistencies surrounding his arrest and the evidence against him, including the multiple wallets, the inconsistencies in connecting him with the weapons involved or the Tippet murder, etc.

            The fact is that he said he was a patsy and was killed in police custody before he could say more lends some credence to the theory that he was framed.

        • Jim Glover says:

          Paulf, That needed to be said, Finally.
          Thank You.

    • Brian Castle says:

      This is a fascinating post. Barrett is claiming that the seasoned veteran Bentley kept Oswald’s wallet “in his hand” for a full 20 minutes, while the officers went from the scene of the Tippit shooting to the theater? Somehow that doesn’t ring true, Bentley would have needed his hands in the meantime. And had he kept he wallet in his own pocket (or in his jacket or some other place on him), someone would have seen him extract it. What kills this theory, is the wallets are not the same. IF the wallets were the same, Barrett’s theory would make sense. But since they’re not, it seems like the weakest grasp at a straw to try to explain the unexplainable. As far as “memories changing”, I’m sure it’s possible to convince oneself of just about anything (we have a somewhat less palatable expression for it out here on the left coast). I continue to find the hoops noteworthy, that people have to jump through when they’re trying to explain this stuff. The wallets were different. Ergo, there was likely no tranport of the Tippit wallet to the Texas Theater – there were actually TWO wallets. If there was any overlap in the contents of those two wallets it would very much point to a conspiracy before the fact.

  23. leslie sharp says:

    It is not a difficult concept, Mr. McAdams. Social Research in fact includes the study of collective consciousness as defined: The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society (in this instance, ‘society’ being New School) forms a determinate system With A Life of Its Own (emphasis mine). . . —Emile Durkheim

    I argue that it is significant to recognize that Ms. Loftus comes out of a collective with a set of shared beliefs, ideas and Moral Attitudes which operate as a unifying force within the collective that was groomed at New School. I further argue that in the 1960′s and ’70′s elements of New School were directly involved in the CIA-controlled MkUltra project at Cornell University which actually manipulated memory as a component of those experiments. I conclude that if Ms. Loftus is being used as an expert on memory in the attempt to discredit eyewitnesses and their long or short term memory of the Kennedy assassination, it is fair game to draw attention to her professional background; her mindset if you will, comes out of what was essentially a hive mentality with a highly sinister history of involvement with elements of the CIA, engaged in illegal mind control experiments on unwitting citizens – including manipulation of memory.

    I’m certain Ms. Loftus is invited to respond on this site, and I am open to her assessment of my argument.

    • John McAdams says:

      I further argue that in the 1960′s and ’70′s elements of New School were directly involved in the CIA-controlled MkUltra project at Cornell University which actually manipulated memory as a component of those experiments.

      And your evidence for that is?

      And is it your position that if somebody at the New School was involved in something you consider sinister, then everybody (including Loftus) was?

      I conclude that if Ms. Loftus is being used as an expert on memory in the attempt to discredit eyewitnesses and their long or short term memory of the Kennedy assassination,

      So every academic who comes up with finding that you conspiracists find inconvenient must be corrupt in some way?

      Loftus is mainstream in psychology. If you think she’s some kind of spook, spreading disinformation, you have to condemn essentially every psychologist who studies memory, cognition, and such.

      • leslie sharp says:

        John McAdams, either you did not read my comment carefully, or you are deliberately ignoring the salient point. You of all people must know that institutions develop and promote a hive mentality. Please note that I have not alleged that Ms. Loftus is a spook (your word.) I challenged the fact that her training and associations had not been highlighted.

        It’s possible the memory work going on at New School in the early ’70′s coincided with the final years of the MkUltra program at Cornell; we have Mr. Richard Helms to thank for destroying critical records of that operation upon his departure from the CIA in 1973 when it is alleged to have been shut down. There may be some information lying around; I will make an effort to locate it and share it with you.

        I’m familiar with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) and knew that Elizabeth Loftus was on the advisory board. While this organization was inspired by the rash of child abuse allegations in the 1990′s, it attracted memory experts of many stripes, including Martin Gardner.

        Considering that jfkfacts commenter “photon” seemed particularly annoyed with my line of research and my suggestion that MkU programming could wear off, I went digging a bit further.

        Another “photon” posts this at global village: :Martin Gardner ran the games, puzzles and diversions section of S.A. for untold eons. He’s a founding member of CSICOP. As well as Randi. Both on the board of FMSF ( CIA ).
        http://www.fmsfonline.org/advboard.html#Martin%20Gardner

        Elizabeth Loftus is on the board of CSICOP with Gardner as well. Why did “photon No. 2″ (for clarity’s sake) add “(CIA)” to his statement. Do you think he means the agency? It is quite possible that this is not “our” photon; it is possible he/she does not know what they’re talking about; it’s possible that “photon” is a collective and merely infiltrating forums. These questions could be resolved if photon would provide his or her bona fides: “sincerely; without intention to deceive.”

        I respect the value of skepticism; I do not respect deliberate attempts to discredit citizens’ eyewitness testimonies in the Kennedy assassination through a broad propaganda campaign engineered by elitists with the backing of the CIA, and promoted here, on this site. That would be insidious.

        Oxford defines elitist: A person who believes that a system or society should be ruled or dominated by an elite.

        • John McAdams says:

          Oxford defines elitist: A person who believes that a system or society should be ruled or dominated by an elite.

          Sound social science is not elitist. Anybody can learn it, and the people who produce it dearly love it if would.

          Few if any of the psychologists who have produced the literature on cognition and memory care much about the JFK assassination. They aren’t trying to support a lone assassin theory. If they care about policy questions, it’s miscarriages of justice due to faulty testimony.

          Are you aware of the Innocence Project? They say that faulty witness testimony is the single worst cause of mistaken convictions.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John, if you would, please help me make sense of this sentence:

            “Anybody can learn it, and the people who produce it dearly love it if would.”

            You argue: “If they care about policy questions, it’s miscarriages of justice due to faulty testimony.”

            Oh the irony “miscarriages of justice.” Would that one of their ilk with character and integrity might step forward to challenge the posthumous prosecution and final sentencing of Oswald without trial. I’m reminded of the judge who said to a JFK researcher, in spite of the judge’s personal suspicion that Oswald acted alone, “the investigation isn’t over until it is fully over.” (paraphrasing)

            you ask: “Are you aware of the Innocence Project? They say that faulty witness testimony is the single worst cause of mistaken convictions.”

            Are you quite serious? Let’s line up the witnesses who helped build the case against Oswald as a lone assassin before we talk about an innocence project.

          • John McAdams says:

            Oh the irony “miscarriages of justice.” Would that one of their ilk with character and integrity might step forward to challenge the posthumous prosecution and final sentencing of Oswald without trial.

            But of course a posthumous prosecution of Lyndon Johnson, or Richard Helms, or Arlen Specter, or any member of the Warren Commission, or any member of the CIA, or any member of the FBI, or any anti-Castro Cuban, is all fine and good.

            Double standard. You think you conspiracists can make all the reckless charges in the world, but don’t anybody say anything unkind about Lee.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Are you aware of the Innocence Project? They say that faulty witness testimony is the single worst cause of mistaken convictions.”

            First of all, can you produce any witness testimony that Helms or any of those you listed were involved in the Kennedy Assassination? If so, then of course the Innocence Project applies to them as well.

            I was challenging your introduction of the project as justification for dismissing, across the board, eyewitness testimony that contradicts your theory about Oswald. You pick and choose which witnesses you need, discredit the rest, and also you have yet to address the number of witnesses that were not called by the WC.

            “Few if any of the psychologists who have produced the literature on cognition and memory care much about the JFK assassination.”

            That is an amazing supposition. Scholars of any discipline, in search of the truth, should recognize the shift in American policy that occurred on 112263. Scholars interested in memory above all should wonder what collective memory does to a nation, and when those memories collide with our government’s official record, the country is divided.

            Cognitive dissonance is disconcerting, and “produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.” Americans have long sought distraction to reduce the discomfort, and as a nation we have yet to resolve the dissonance and restore balance since Kennedy’s assassination.

            Unless of course, for example, you consider US environmental policies to be contributing to balance in our country, let alone on the planet? I propose that Kennedy would not have allowed things to progress in such a destructive way.

    • Photon says:

      “her mindset… comes out of what was essentially a hive mentality with a highly sinister history of involvement with elements of the CIA.”
      How could you possibly know what her mindset is?
      You seem to find conspiracy members behind every rock and corner, plotting to control everybody and everything connected with the assassination. Your continuous efforts to link everybody with even the remotest links to JFK or his assassination with undefined “sinister” elements have one thing in common a complete lack of any real evidence that these “associations” actually exist, let alone that even if one assumes that they DO exist that they have any significance whatsoever. Do you believe in thought control involving millions? That is the only way that your endless connections theories could even be possible.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Photon, have you studied Edward Louis Bernays? for expediency, and to give you a bit of a boost, this from wiki:

        Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as “the father of public relations”.[1] He combined the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on CROWD PSYCHOLOGY with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud.

        In respectful anticipation of your response: no, I do not believe that Bernays was behind the assassination. You are wasting your breathe engaging with me on this topic so perhaps it would be less frustrating for you if you pursued themes of a less challenging nature. Go watch some football. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOLgXjplfh4

        • John McAdams says:

          no, I do not believe that Bernays was behind the assassination.

          Then why do you mention him?

          Do you think he was involved in a cover-up?

          • leslie sharp says:

            John,

            Now you’re being silly.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bernays saw citizens as potential consumers of product. Adolf Berle and his group saw citizens as research specimens and potential foot soldiers, perhaps murderers.

            “It was not long before Adolf Berle agreed to serve on the board of the Society for the investigation of Human Ecology, a foundation the CIA created as a cover for MKUltra. “I’m frightened about this one,” Berle wrote in his diary. “If the scientists do what they have laid out for themselves, men will become manageable ants. But I don’t think that will happen” . . .

            . . .There were Eminent Physicians and Scientists (emphasis mine) on the board of the society. But lurking behind the sterile formal reports of the researchers was violence…. The CIA was interested in creating a blank mind that could be programmed.” from “Thy Will Be Done,” Colby & Dennett pg. 265

    • Jonathan says:

      Leslie,

      I subscribe, I believe, to what you describe as hive mentality. There is a well-known psychology experiment that establishes the power a group has on individual thinking.

      In the experiment, a group of, say, 10 test subject were asked to view a video recording of an event involving several elements. The subjects were then asked in the presence of one another specific questions about what they saw. Nine of the subjects covertly had been instructed by the experimenter to lie about a certain thing they had seen. The tenth subject, who was “innocent,” was the last to be questioned. She went along with the group, later admitting she gave an answer contrary to her perception, because she did not want to be at odds with the group.

      There’s a recent movie based on this theme; I can’t recall it’s title, but it’s an excellent thriller.

      IMO the poster boy for MK/ULTRA is Sirhan Sirhan. He’s the Manchurian Candidate come to life. Only he didn’t kill RFK. He couldn’t have according Thomas Noguchi and what’s known about the crime and crime scene. He just set himself up as the patsy. To ensure RFK wouldn’t be elected president, wouldn’t open a controlled investigation into JFK’s death.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Jonathan, as you well know, you are expertly tying together the threads, sorting out the strings of spaghetti, one by one, methodically. This level of concentration will have dividends; I trust you are saving all of your posts. My high regards.

      • Photon says:

        Good God,Rafer Johnson and Rosie Grier had to wrestle down Sirhan while he was still firing his Iver Johnson, another “cheap and unreliable” weapon that could kill.
        The guy admitted that he shot him, his diary stated that “Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy must die” and he even outlined his motive about RFK’s position on selling Phantom II jets to Israel.He hit RFK behind the ear in probably the only spot that a .22 Long Rifle round would have delivered a fatal wound, in the midbrain.If he hadn’t been inches away for RFK even that shot probably would not have killed him. Who would have ever set up an attempt like that?

        • Jonathan says:

          Photon, you recount the official story.

          Please take a hike, Photon.

          Sirhan was tackled 3-4 feet in front of RFK.

          The wound that killed RFK was fired 1-3″ from his right ear. From behind.

        • leslie sharp says:

          If I understand this argument, you are suggesting that because Johnson and Grier wrestled Sirhan to the ground, Sirhan could not have been a subject in a mind control programme prior to the assassination of Robert Kennedy Or because Sirhan had a cheap, unreliable weapon he could not have been under the control of outside forces? The remaining elements of the case that have you cited here have been disputed for decades.

        • John says:

          Let’s not forget that the Iver Johnson that Sirhan Sirhan was firing was later identified as a starter’s pistol that only fired blanks and also that Thane Eugene Cesar inaccurately told the authorities that he sold his revolver before the RFK assassination when in actuality he sold it afterwards without it being tested by the LAPD. Not to pile on, but an audio tape has recently been recovered showing more shots were fired than Sirhan’s alleged weapon had the capacity for as well.

      • John Kirsch says:

        I wanted to comment on your mention of the Manchurian Candidate theory (for lack of a better word). This may be off-topic but in listening to the Oswald interview on the New Orleans radio station, I got a definite sense that he had been rehearsed. There were also moments where his voice took on a monotone quality (to my ears), just like the G.I.’s who’d been brainwashed to say “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
        The Manchurian Candidate was directed by John Frankenheimer, who also directed “Seven Days in May.” I believe RFK stayed at Frankenheimer’s house the night before he was assassinated.

  24. Bill Simpich says:

    This may be a good time to mention that if you look at the Warren Commission testimony of Kenneth Croy, the officer who supposedly received the wallet from an unknown citizen, you will see that the Commission called Croy as a witness because he was under suspicion as the culprit who let Ruby inside the garage to kill Oswald.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      VERY Interesting and appreciated. I respect your work but will you please post the WO Volume/page(s) for Professor Johnny Mac and his friends (with all due respect).

  25. Photon says:

    Why not?

  26. Roger Brown says:

    If Oswald killed Tippit, the odds that he would have dropped his wallet at the murder scene are small. It smells so much like a plant.

    Barret’s dismissal of Bentley’s story about finding a wallet on Oswald is based only on the fact that a wallet was already found at the scene. Of course, Barret ignores the possibility that there were two wallets. So he has no valid reason to debunk Bentley’s report.

  27. Bill Simpich says:

    Here’s the testimony of Kenneth Croy to the Warren Commission. They never proved his complicity in letting Ruby into the garage to shoot Oswald…https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=7795&relPageId=196

    But it’s clear they were suspicious…https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=7795&relPageId=199

    Croy was questioned for eight hours during the week after Oswald was killed.
    https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=7795&relPageId=209

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Wow. Thanks one more time, I’ve never read this. If I understand this right we have an off duty reserve officer who happened to be the closest to and first on the scene of Tippit.
      He is handed or picked up a wallet that is never mentioned in a report by him or the other officers who arrived including an FBI agent. He then goes to meet his estranged wife for lunch at of all places Austin Barbeque.
      Two days later in the jail basement he sees a blur he thinks was Ruby crouched low brush past him and bust through the line like a fullback. He is told by a superior when giving his report – two days later – after discussing the incident for eight hours to leave the Ruby part out of this report!
      Wow.

      • mball says:

        In re Croy, try D.L. Mead’s THE OSWALD PARADIGM, chapter 36, “A Dropped Stitch.” It deals with Sgt. Croy. I don’t agree with all of Mead’s ideas, but the work on Croy is most interesting, as is his dissection of the finding of Oswald’s alleged jacket behind the Texaco station near the Tippit murder.

    • Jonathan says:

      Ruby brushed past Croy, head down, like a full-back.

      One might almost think Croy’s job was to act as a tackle to open a hole in the line for the full-back.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I’d like to point out those were his words to the WO. Not mine.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        No block there. He stood back and didn’t see or couldn’t remember much else per his testimony.

        • Jonathan says:

          Ronnie, I’ve read most of Croy’s W.C. testimony (h/t Bill Simpich).

          He’s got a lot of memory failure as you say.

          The part that’s hard to believe is that when he first saw Ruby, he thought Ruby was a reporter; it’s only when Ruby brushed past him like a fullback, he forms the thought, “gee, maybe that’s Jack Ruby.”

          Croy knew Ruby. Why didn’t he recognize him when he first saw him in the basement? To say he mis-identified Ruby as a reporter is to say he lied to the Warren Commission.

          I’d like to see Croy’s total financial records for 1963 and 1964.

  28. JRock says:

    Pardon me if this seems a bit off topic, but does anyone else find it odd that 50 years later, a couple of kids in Boston (acting alone of course) commit a “shocker” and later decide to go across town and murder a policeman? No witnesses to the murder, but we ‘know’ it was them…..
    Hmmmm…. the more things change….

    • JSA says:

      No, and I don’t find that case to be at all the same. Those kids shot the cop out of desperation, to flee town after realizing that they were being found out from the video surveillance.

      What I wish could have happened with the JFK assassination would have been for someone to have filmed or photographed the event and quickly left the scene before any of the authorities could catch them and confiscate their film. Then, following my wish scenario, this film or set of photos would be held in secret for years, until it was safer to release them, maybe after multiple copies had been sent out so tampering would have been more difficult to do to just one copy. People did speak out, but because the authorities confiscated their evidence, it was their word against the officials’. The only lucky break to come out was the police motorcycle tape, which alone proves multiple shooters (at least two). Read Thomas’ “Hear No Evil” to find out more.

  29. KenS says:

    Here’s another question:
    Let’s assume that Tippit had never been killed and Oswald was never taken into custody but had simply disappeared after the assassination. He still would have been implicated by the discovery of the rifle on the sixth floor, which is then traced back to the PO box. So the murder of Tippit is not necessary for framing Oswald at all; I think Tippit’s murder is only necessary as the result of a possible double cross so Oswald would be arrested when events went sideways for the conspirators (money squabble, perhaps?). What’s wrong with my thinking here?

    • leslie sharp says:

      KenS,

      If one is convinced that Oswald alone assassinated President Kennedy, then your question is plausible. If one is on the fence, he or she would at least consider that time was of the essence for the success of the conspiracy. Oswald as an effective patsy had to be identified immediately (within the hour), he also needed to be arrested and arraigned quickly, thus the Tippitt murder … the public would not accept the rapid ID of a rifle, the shells, Oswald’s departure from the TSBD, etc. as evidence of his shooting Kennedy without first being primed to recognize him as a crazed murderer – enter Tippitt. The plotters of this deed were experienced, and most likely trained in the art of magic and illusion as ludicrous as that will sound to many who find the theory too complex or uncomfortable to consider.

      • mball says:

        Accepting that it was a conspiracy and that Oswald was a patsy, it is inconceivable to me that any conspirator would want Oswald taken alive. John Martino, a self-admitted part of the conspiracy, said that Oswald was to meet a contact at the Texas Theater, be taken out of the country (or so he thought), and killed. I suspect that Oswald would have been found, possibly in Mexico, in a situation that would have implicated Fidel Castro. Someone fouled up, Oswald was arrested, and Ruby was a last gasp measure used to silence him. There’s no way that anyone wanted Oswald talking – about anything.

    • JSA says:

      Not a bad argument. I think Oswald was supposed to be killed before being taken into custody, for a tidier post-death guilty charge, with no messy interrogation or possibility of even the remote chance of a trial. But since he wasn’t killed, he had to be killed before there could be that trial, so Ruby was forced to do it. That was Jimmy Hoffa’s assessment, as he related it to Frank Sheeran years later, not long before he disappeared. Oswald’s number was up when he showed up for work that day in November. If he had been smarter, he would have done what Richard Case Nagell did—get himself out by shooting a bank ceiling and getting arrested before the assassination could take place.

  30. I am wondering, with all of the discussion about Tippit and Oswald (and Ruby) he following: Why is it that, nowhere in the record, is it ever mentioned that JD Tippit was killed only 150 yards from Jack Ruby’s Apartment at 222-225 S. Ewing? Why has it never been discussed or reviewed??

    With all of the allegations over the years, from the Spy meets other Spy’s in theaters (Hence the Texas Theater meeting…nonsense), to running from the police (more nonsense). The fact is that Oswald set out from his Rooming House and made a BEELINE to JACK RUBY’s Apartment where he was going to find out what the heck had happened.

    There were two BOLO(s) that day. 1. A male fitting the general description of Oswald and 2. A Rambler Wagon seen leaving the area. Isn’t it strange to anyone else that Tippit stopped a Rambler Wagon in the street and searched it before getting back into his cruiser and then confronting Oswald?

    Btw…there is a Dallas news feed that does pick up with the story of the Car being found in the Oak Cliff area just a minute or two before the shooting of Tippit. In any case….awfully interesting that 10th and Patton (Tippit Shooting) is only 150 yards from Ruby’s Apartment. Agree?

    • KenS says:

      I agree, Ruby pervades the Tippit case like a fog. So many of the individuals in this case have connections to him (T.J. Bowley, Jack Ray Tatum, Helen Markham, Kenneth Croy, Barbara Davis). Even the location of the killing is confined to his turf. What, or who, could pull all these elements together at that time, in that place, with these people, for Tippit’s untimely death? Oswald?

  31. Frank Griffin Author of Touched by Fire has signed on to join our JFK whodunnit? tour for October 22 , 2014. Author of the book “Touched By Fire” a national best seller Frank will be signing autographs and selling his book at Lee Harvey Oswald’s rooming home in Dallas Texas.
    For info contact : 214-310-0700
    http://www.Oswaldroominghousetours.com
    Frank Griffin – Interviews
    http://www.franklingriffin.com/interviews.html
    STORE · CONTACT. Local & National Interviews
    6th Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza Oral taped interviews.

  32. John McAdams says:

    To cap it all, Klein’s did not put scopes on this rifle and we all know DPD found it with a scope.

    Yet another factoid. This is from Armstrong, I assume?

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Kleins_ads.jpg

    The image is from David Von Pein.

  33. John McAdams says:

    As you are aware, conspiracists will say that the MC found was 40″ but the one purchased via mail order was 36″ (or vice versa).

    Which proves a conspiracy how?

    I think the simple explanation is that they were out of stock on one, and sent the other.

    It was a $12 rifle. Klein’s doubtless thought buyers were not that picky.

    My wife has ordered plants and been sent something close, but not exactly what she ordered.

  34. John McAdams says:

    – The handwriting on the alleged order form is unlike the handwriting on the alleged postal money order.

    You say that (did you get this from Armstrong?) but bona fide handwriting experts say you are wrong.

    – The alleged order is for a 36″ Carcano. The alleged murder weapon sitting in the national archives is 40.2″ long. Some writers have questioned whether Klein’s was either selling or placing scopes on 40.2″ Carcanos in March 1963.

    Klein’s was advertising that they did indeed put scopes on 40 inch Carcanos.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/kleins_ads.jpg

    Why would the not do that?

    – Oswald ordered no ammunition from Klein’s. Yet he supposedly plays the role of sniper with exactly four rounds of 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition. Curious minds want to know, where did he get those four rounds? The Warren Commission didn’t delve into this.

    So what? Are you saying that only some spooky people (CIA, Military, etc.) could possibly be handing out those rounds?

  35. John McAdams says:

    Complete and utter speculation John, you are reaching without a shred of evidence what Klein’s were thinking!

    What’s your speculation? If you want to reject my speculation, you need to show that what I suggested is implausible.

    Is it somehow the case that a 40 inch rifle is a lone assassin rifle, and a 36 inch rifle is a conspiracy rifle, and Klein’s gave the plot away by sending the conspiracy rifle?

    Let’s hear your theory of how this is sinister.

  36. John McAdams says:

    For everyone’s sake, Mr. McAdams, let’s not get into Alonso Hudkins, the former Houston Post journalist who, after writing about the LHO/FBI connection on January 1, 1964, suddenly sprang forward saying he lied about the FBI informant numbers.

    You mean you still believe that bogus report?

  37. John McAdams says:

    You’ve got the burden of proof.

    No, you just say that when you get called out on the evidence.

    This is not a criminal trial. This is historical inquiry.

    It’s all about what it most probable.

  38. John McAdams says:

    What we do know about LHO is that he dropped off a note at the FBI’s Dallas office and asked a secretary to give it to FBI agent James Hosty shortly before JFK’s assassination.

    Right. He was unhappy about Hosty going out to Irving to interview Marina.

    Oswald told both Ruth Paine and Marina that he was unhappy about that, and that he was going to contact the FBI to complain.

    And he did.

  39. Jonathan says:

    Some facts:

    – The handwriting on the alleged order form is unlike the handwriting on the alleged postal money order. The numerals of P.O. Box 2915 are formed differently, particularly the 2, the 9 and the 1, and the disparate uniformity in height (uniform height of numerals on money order, up-and-down heights on order form). This is a giveaway, because one forms numerals the same way whether printing (order form) or writing (money order).

    – The alleged order is for a 36″ Carcano. The alleged murder weapon sitting in the national archives is 40.2″ long. Some writers have questioned whether Klein’s was either selling or placing scopes on 40.2″ Carcanos in March 1963.

    – The alleged order form is for a Carcano with bottom sling mounts (front and back) but no sling. The alleged murder weapon has a sling of unknown origin, which is side mounted on the stock. From where did the sling come? How did a rear bottom swivel mount become a side swivel mount?

    – Oswald ordered no ammunition from Klein’s. Yet he supposedly plays the role of sniper with exactly four rounds of 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition. Curious minds want to know, where did he get those four rounds? The Warren Commission didn’t delve into this.

  40. Gerry Simone says:

    Thanks for this link John to those ads.

    It certainly says ‘includes 4x scope’ (in fact, it was a Japanese scope – I know a retired researcher who had the same type of scope on his MC which was also quality-checked by the same employee at that Terni factory).

    But this link of 3 ads begs the question: Why does it say 40″ in one ad and 36″ in another? Is that a mistake? As you are aware, conspiracists will say that the MC found was 40″ but the one purchased via mail order was 36″ (or vice versa).

    Any explanation?

  41. bcmarshall says:

    Thanks, Jonathan. You’ve brought up a few of the inconsistencies that make it impossible for the Klein’s story to be true. However, there are literally dozens more.

    The best site I’ve ever seen that truly lays out all of them is here. http://giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm

    It’ll take an hour or more to read, and several hours more to study and look up references, etc., but it’s worth it

    My own opinion is that nobody can look at all of those facts and not realize that LHO never owned that gun. The ‘evidence’ that he did is a joke and more full of holes than Swiss cheese.

  42. B kamp says:

    ”I think the simple explanation is that they were out of stock on one, and sent the other.

    It was a $12 rifle. Klein’s doubtless thought buyers were not that picky.

    My wife has ordered plants and been sent something close, but not exactly what she ordered”

    Complete and utter speculation John, you are reaching without a shred of evidence what Klein’s were thinking!

  43. Paulf says:

    John:

    Seriously? They were out of one gun so they sent another? Because your wife got sent the wrong plant once?

    Do you have anything, anything at all to back this up? Do you have inventory records about which guns were in stock that month? Did Klein’s routinely do that? Was it corporate policy? Because it wouldn’t be at any other corporation I’ve ever heard of.

    Or are you just making stuff up because it sounds good?

    I note also have you use this uncomfortable fact to change the subject. Does this prove conspiracy? Of course not. But it is strong evidence that the gun found at the scene isn’t the one ordered, or if it was, that there was something unusual about the purchase and that it can’t be traced to Oswald.

  44. Oh really?

    When a company runs out of a particular product, they just go ahead and send you one that is not the same, but similar?

    Say I order brown penny loafers. They don’t have them. They send me burgundy ones?

  45. Gerry Simone says:

    I thought about this issue, and later noticed the distinction with a ‘carbine’ model, which has a shorter barrel.

    So maybe there were two types. One may have been advertised, but the other model (i.e., the ‘carbine’) was the actual one shipped.

    Incidentally, a ‘carbine’ would be less accurate due to the shorter barrel.

  46. Jim Glover says:

    That research on the rifle having a rusted barrel which would have been gone after one shot is smoking gun evidence. It also explains that the scope does not come with the 36 inch rifle that Oswald supposedly bought but even the records of the purchase and payment are not complete or feasible. Also the scope was probably mounted to be off target and had to be fixed.

    Another thing is if Oswald or anyone used that rifle to hit a target after laying on a garage floor for months after being driven from new orleans to Texas by Ruth Pain without Ruth knowing she was bringing a rifle to her home or that it was on the garage floor in a blanket for months when she had kids in the house is ridiculous.

    Another problem is how the shooter with that old rifle would assemble it at the Texas book Depository and test fire at a target in order to set the telescopic site to line up and shoot straight. it takes time and extra shots just to get a rifle site set up accurately. And then there is the dented shell which raises other questions as to who all shot JFK. None of the shells found have a provable chain of custody.

  47. Jim Glover says:

    John, Would you think a rifle supposedly tavelling by Ruth Paine’s Station wagon from New Orleans to Dallas without Ruth seeing it and then laying on her garge Floor for months wraped in a blanket with kids in her house but without her or her huband knowing it was there and then suposedly tossed in the back seat of a car on the way to the “snipers nest” would fire accuratly after reasembled in secret without the re-setting the scope for accuracy with test shots? Also the rifle had rust in the barrel which would have been blown out after the first shot when supposedly 3 shots were fired from that rifle. check out and explain: http://giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm

  48. Jonathan says:

    The W.C. bona fide handwriting experts, Cadigan and Cole, worked from photographs, not original materials. The provenance of the photos was never established. TWO INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS from an evidentiary standpoint. Apart from these two problems, the STRENGTH of Cadigan’s and Cole’s opinions is reduced by the fact the STANDARDS they used (known examples of LHO’s handwriting, which should be ORIGINALS) were in some cases COPIES.

    The HSCA bona fide handwriting experts, McNally, Purtell, and Scott, confirmed there are problems with photocopies:

    “Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting for analysis purposes?

    Mr. McNALLY. No, never.

    (2 HSCA 393)

    Strike one, John McAdams.

    AS TO THE SCOPE, MIC

    David Purtell said,

    “Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison…..Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made.”

    (8 HSCA 239)

    Strike one, John McAdams.

    AS TO THE SCOPE, Mitchell Westra, who worked at Klein’s, testified to the HSCA that in March 1963 Klein’s mounted scopes only on 36″ Carcanos. The guy who actually mounted scopes for Klein’s, Bill Sharp, confirmed to the HSCA thatin March 1963 Klein’s had a package deal for Carcano + scope that applied only to 36″ Carcanos.

    Strike two, John McAdams.

    AS TO THE FOUR ROUNDS, I’m simply saying there’s an important question that demands an answer. It’s a question so important, it goes to whether it’s reasonable to believe the four rounds in question were used in the assassination. From where did these four rounds come? One didn’t buy rounds except in boxes. There’s no record of Oswald’s having purchased 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in Dallas or elsewhere. None.

    I’ll award a foul ball rather than a third strike. You took a swing, John, and made a point but didn’t really address the issue.

    By the way, as to JOHN ARMSTRONG: He only has to be right once as to a major point, and the story that Oswald did it all alone collapses. You on the other hand have to be right all the time, 100 percent, as to major points. That’s the problem with Warren Commission story. It’s far too delicate a structure.

  49. bogman says:

    So let me get this straight:

    o Oswald brought just enough bullets to kill the president plus one. But didn’t have any spare bullets anywhere else in case he gets holed up in the 6th floor in a shoot out with authorities and can’t get away.

    o After killing the president, he decides he does want to fight authorities to the death, and one rifle bullet won’t be enough. So he heads to his boarding house for his revolver.

    o He was smart enough to smuggle in a rifle and set-up a sniper’s nest and get away from the scene of the crime, but he wasn’t smart enough to ditch the false ID that would tie him to both weapons.

    What a crazy/smart/dumb guy Oswald was.

  50. jeffc says:

    The “bona fide handwriting experts” also made it clear that a positive opinion could only be based on viewing original documents – and none of the documentation associated with the mail order rifle is original. The mail order coupon itself is a copy of a copy.

  51. John Kirsch says:

    Just for the sake of argument, imagine Oswald in his “sniper’s nest.” He (supposedly) has a barrier of boxes to hide behind, at least partially. (He must have been standing for some period of time. Would the boxes have been stacked high enough to conceal him at those times? Did he actually stack any or all of the boxes of books, which weighed 55 pounds each, according to the Warren Commission, a source I hesitate to rely on.)
    Oswald is supposedly preparing to carry out an act of extreme violence and historical significance. He plans to assassinate the president of the United States as the president’s car passes by the TSBD on the street below. Later, the Warren Commission, charged by the new president with investigating the crime (which it really doesn’t do) will be unable to offer any coherent explanation of why Oswald (supposedly) killed the president.
    Back to the “sniper’s nest.” Despite the box barrier, the scene is not secure. Oswald can’t be certain that one of his fellow TSBD employees won’t appear unexpectedly on the sixth floor and discover him in the act of assassinating the president (and wounding the governor of Texas.)
    How could he possibly explain away what he is doing? He couldn’t. The employee who found him would have immediately raised the alarm.
    What could Oswald have done?
    If he had shot the employee, that would have given away his position and ruined his plans. If he had struggled with the employee, he might have missed his shot.
    The more I think about this scene of Oswald in the “sniper’s nest,” in an unsecured position, the less sense it makes.

  52. Photon says:

    Jim, there have been millions of military rifles around the world that have been subject to much more abuse than Oswald’s Carcano ever was and yet they retained their accuracy and function-out to hundreds of yards. It is quite apparent that you don’t fire rifles- many American hunters are still using rifles made before Oswald’s “old” rifle 50 years after the assassination. It has been proven that the Carcano could have been reassembled in minutes using just a dime.
    Even if your comments about re-sighting the ‘scope were true (which they are not) Oswald could have fired using the iron sights without the “scope, as some authors think he did.

  53. Neil Hodges says:

    Have you confirmed that there was a shortage of 36″ Carcanos in early 1963? If not, then your speculation seems based on wishful thinking.

  54. B Kamp says:

    You have no evidence that proves your speculative point, the burden of proof lies with you.

  55. Jim Glover says:

    I was a good shot in ROTC and we learned how to adjust the iron sites but why you brought up that shows you are not positive by bringing up the iron sites. Oh so now for accuracy without setting the scope you suggest maybe the scope was not used and any shooter would know the site would have to be tested and any good shooter would know even though Oswald was eating lunch on the 2nd floor and the girl on the stairs saw no Oswald.

    But having rust inside the barrel means that rifle was not shot no matter how old it is. It was planted as I was planted to observe and learn how the coup was done. I was told of the plot before it happened and witnessed much and reported to the FBI in Tampa in 91 and since it is a crime to lie to the FBI, I am still free. I saw many men who were involved in the plot and coverup in the weeks before Dallas and on that day.

    About a month before Dallas I was told by a Hollywood agent not to write anything down or interfere because it was dangerous. It has been dangerous, with many close calls but I still write what I saw first hand anyway.

  56. Jonathan says:

    Photon, you’ve reappeared after a brief hiatus.

    Hereinabove, you ask me to reveal specific information about myself. I’ve responded, except that I don’t know of your classmate.

    There are and have been calls here photon for you to reveal who you are, as a public person, the sort of person who would be featured in “Northern Virginia Magazine.”

    You need not be afraid, Photon. If you are a public person to any extent, what do you care?

  57. Jonathan says:

    The whole story of the sixth floor on November 22 makes sense only if Oswald wasn’t there at the time of the shooting.

    One disinterested observer saw TWO men on the sixth floor shortly before the assassination.

    Another disinterested observer saw sniper nest nest boxes being moved within two minutes after the assassination.

    This is granular stuff. Pieces of the historical record. Only ONE of these pieces has to be a fact, and the Warren Report goes down the drain. Just ONE.

  58. leslie sharp says:

    John Kirsch, returning repeatedly to the scene of the crime is the only way this case will be resolved. The picture you paint is stark, succinct, unemotional and apparently devoid of external or extraneous influence. I am assuming you are a trained investigative reporter.

    You ask in general, ‘How could Oswald be assured that he could arrange the boxes, fire the rifle, and remove himself from the sniper’s nest without being discovered let alone impeded.’

    The answer is that he couldn’t. A crazed, lone nut assassin might possibly take that risk, but not the individual we are lead to believe then sauntered over to the stairs, descended, stopped for a coke, exited the building, walked casually toward Poydras and Lamar, took a taxi, boarded a bus, etc. to his boarding room, then picked up a pistol, shot a police officer, and took refuge in a movie theater.

  59. bcmarshall says:

    Good point. DPD easily got onto the roof. Why not go there? It would surely make more sense.

    But then again, if it’s sense we’re searching for, why wouldn’t he have shot as the car approached, at its closest point?

  60. John McAdams says:

    The HSCA bona fide handwriting experts, McNally, Purtell, and Scott, confirmed there are problems with photocopies:

    “Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting for analysis purposes?

    Mr. McNALLY. No, never.

    Nice use of selective testimony. But you are ignoring this:

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/4p332f504.gif

    In regard to this and a bunch of other documents, McNally said:

    Mr. MCNALLY – The conclusion of the panel was that the writing on all of these original documents was all done by the same individual. That also included a number of photographs and photo reproductions. We also concluded these were done by the same individual.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/mcnally2.htm

    He added a “word of caution” about not being able to examine originals. But this is miles from your claims that the handwriting didn’t match.

    Where did you get that?

  61. John McAdams says:

    AS TO THE SCOPE, Mitchell Westra, who worked at Klein’s, testified to the HSCA that in March 1963 Klein’s mounted scopes only on 36″ Carcanos. The guy who actually mounted scopes for Klein’s, Bill Sharp, confirmed to the HSCA that in March 1963 Klein’s had a package deal for Carcano + scope that applied only to 36″ Carcanos.

    You apparently ignoring a document I’ve posted a few times.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/kleins_ads.jpg

    Klein’s was advertising the scope on both variants of the MC.

    By the way, as to JOHN ARMSTRONG: He only has to be right once as to a major point, and the story that Oswald did it all alone collapses. You on the other hand have to be right all the time,

    Are you admitting that Armstrong has propagated a bunch of silly factoids?

    But somewhere among those factoids there must be the “killer” piece of evidence that proves conspiracy?

    Would you say that about 9/11 Truthers?

    Or is it possible for people to latch onto some conspiracy theory, and then there is a little cottage industry producing factoid after factoid claiming to prove conspiracy?

    And this is true even when there is no conspiracy?

  62. Jim Glover says:

    Jonathon, excellent observations.

  63. Photon says:

    Thanks for the information. Why didn’t you tell the authorities and save us all this grief?

  64. Jean Davison says:

    Neil and all,

    Years ago JFK researcher Martin Shackelford (who’s definitely not a “WC defender”) posted information from “The Marketing of a Weapon” by Gary Nivaggi, which included all Klein’s ads that appeared in The American Rifleman from 1958-1964.

    Noting that Oswald used the coupon from the Feb.’63 issue that advertised a 36″ rifle, Martin wrote, “It appears that, by the time Oswald got around to ordering a Mannlicher, something had changed at Klein’s. The April 1963 ad, which would have hit newsstands in March, had the identical ad they had been running, including the same picture, except that the item was described as a 40-inch rifle instead of a 36-inch carbine, although the order number remained C20-T750. This remained the same in the June and July 1963 ads…. Klein’s finally changed their ad again in August 1963, now assigning the 40-inch rifle a new order number, C20-750.”

    The link John McAdams posted of three Klein’s ads illustrates this progression. The first two show the 36″ and 40″ models, both with the same catalog number. That explains how Oswald could order the shorter version and get the other one — same catalog number: C20-T750.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/kleins_ads.jpg

    Please note that the catalog number is for the rifle *with a scope*. The price Oswald paid also indicates he ordered the rifle *with a scope*.

  65. Jonathan says:

    Back to Reading 101, John. I didn’t say the handwriting on the order form didn’t match the handwriting on the money order. I said the handwriting on the two items is UNLIKE, a factual statement. The writing on the alleged order form is PRINTED in a mix of upper- and lower-cass letters. The writing on the money order is cursive.

    So let’s go back to McNally’s “word of caution.”

    Better yet, let’s try to get McNally’s qualified opinion admitted into evidence in a hypothetical trial of Oswald. The trial judge will exclude the opinon from evidence, keep it from, the jury, because it’s based in part on photocopies the provence of which never has been established.

    That’s you basic problem, John. You’ve got the burden of proof. Just as the historical record has been blurred for the citizenry in general, it’s blurred for you. All you’ve got as an accuser is a blunt spear.

  66. Jonathan says:

    John,

    Please establish that the document to which you link is a copy of an original Klein’s ad for February or March 1963. Please provide the name of the publication (and publication date) in which the ad appeared. I have no way of knowing whether the item you display is a photo of a genuine ad — it appears in part to be a cut-and-paste job. I also cannot tell when this ad, if is genuine, was published or first published. At the end of the day, there is a square conflict between the testimonies under oath of Westra and Sharp and your document of as yet unknown provenance.

    My comment about John Armstrong and you admits nothing; I’ve nothing to admit. It’s merely a point of logic. You’ve got an impossible burden of proof defending the Official Story. You’re like a baseball player who steps up to the plate having to maintain a perfect batting average, otherwise your team loses.

  67. DK Wilson says:

    So, that Oswald left a wallet at the Paine’s with $170 in it is a lie? Or, Paul Bentley, who gave his “testimony” about finding a wallet on LHO 50 years ago was lying?

    Or, according to John McAdams, “decades-old testimony… that’s particularly unreliable,” which would be the testimony given FIFTY years after the fact by Bob Barrett, is a lie?!

    What seems to be happening here is that we have entered the semantic morass that is John McAdams attempting to explain away every and anything that doesn’t fit the Lone Nut theory, even if it means contradicting himself.

    We are to believe LHO, an alleged FBI informant replete with payout numbers and an alleged CIA asset, decided to kill the president.

    For everyone’s sake, Mr. McAdams, let’s not get into Alonso Hudkins, the former Houston Post journalist who, after writing about the LHO/FBI connection on January 1, 1964, suddenly sprang forward saying he lied about the FBI informant numbers. Hudkins is also the same man who told George O’Toole and Ron Rosenbaum he worked in the petroleum engineering field, helped smuggle arms into Cuba just before the Bay of Pigs invasion, was employed by H.L. Hunt as part of an assassin team paid by Hunt to kill Castro and Cheddi Jagan of Guiana, and said the CIA recruited him while employed as an engineer by Hunt!

    Nothing Hudkins said, one way or the other, can be believed, as he was never questioned under oath about his claims (nor can we believe Hugh Aynesworth, who claimed he gave Hudkins the number so Hudkins would “stop calling and wasting my time.” This means we are to believe Aynesworth set up Hudkins – whew!

    What we do know about LHO is that he dropped off a note at the FBI’s Dallas office and asked a secretary to give it to FBI agent James Hosty shortly before JFK’s assassination. We know Hosty’s phone number was found in a notebook belonging to LHO. We know that, during the height of the Cold War, no U.S. citizen defected to Russia and waltzed back into the U.S. without being immediately detained for a lengthy period – unless, of course, he was doing work for one of the U.S. intelligence services.

    But wait once more! Jean Davison, in a comment, says Barrett “misremembered when and where Westbrook asked him about the two names.” Bob Barrett, Roger Clemens, and Andy Pettitte, Hall of Fame members of the “Misremember Club.”

    The Assassination of a president. The assassination of a Dallas police officer. A wallet is found at the scene of the officer’s killing. Men from this scene are also at the Theater where LHO was arrested.

    But somehow, somehow, the wallet from the Tippit crime scene never makes it into the official record. Hmmm. And all these “factoids” – a McAdams favorite term – are part of a conspiracy “cottage industry,” as if the 99 and 44/100% of people who know LHO was a patsy and comment on sites like this and others are all making money off of these so-called factoids.

    Finally, did anyone stop to ask why FBI agent Bob Barrett would fear Dallas’ chief polygraph examiner and then, since it weighed so heavily on his heart, wait FIVE more years after the examiner’s death to tell his story?!… oh sorry, just another factoid.

  68. Scott Tracy says:

    Exactly correct Oswald had 5 wallets and four bullets

  69. I also wanted to bring your attention to Mr. Arnold’s taped version of the event as well. He also said he saw a man with a rifle in the opposite (I guess that would make it SW window as well). He gave this statement to a reporter and it’s been posted on Youtube (with Mr. Arnold’s screen capture on the cover page if you will).

  70. Then what is the proof that Oswald ever picked up that rifle, or that handgun John?

    In the first case, who is the worker who handed the large box to Oswald, and where are the regulation forms for transfer of weapons?

    Where is the form authorizing others to pick up merchandise since it was not ordered in Oswald’s name?

    Where was the postcard notifying Oswald to pick up the handgun at REA?

    Where is the proof REA was visited by the FBI the day of the assassination?

    I await your reply to these facts.

  71. Bogman says:

    And that was enough for the highest echelons of the FBI to order its destruction?

    Even you have to admit, John, that the destruction of evidence by the govt is rampant in this case. And if you don’t agree with the 50 years of conspiracy mongering, the No.1 reason is the deliberate destruction of evidence by govt officials.

  72. Gerry Simone says:

    Addendum: The carbine was advertised but I take it the longer one was shipped, however, it came with a scope? Begs the question, pursuant to Jonathan’s post of April 26th, 2014 at 9:43 am.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more