Oswald’s wallet, Part II: Was the ‘Hidell’ ID card planted?

In my April 21 article, I asked the question Who found Oswald’s Wallet?

In this article I pose the question:  Was a phony identification card for “Alek HIdell” inserted into the wallet after it was found?

Listen here to Dallas Police Department Officer Gerald Hill discuss the capture of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963. [Editor’s note: to cut to the chase, go to 3:17 in the audio file.]

Listen for what Hill does not say:

He does not say anything about “Hidell” or an identification card.

Is this omission significant? I think it is.

My previous article recounted the details. FBI agent Bob Barrett said he saw Oswald’s wallet in the hands of DPD Captain Michael Westbrook at the scene of the murder of Dallas police office J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.

The article also recounted that the arresting officer, Paul Bentley, told a different story. Bentley said he found Oswald’s wallet while frisking him in the police car after leaving the Texas Theatre where Oswald was arrested on November 22.

Both men say that the wallet contained identification cards for both Lee Harvey Oswald and “Alek Hidell.”

So was Oswald carrying the Alek Hidell ID in his wallet when he was arrested?

He had not been previously seen using the ID card, or the Hidell alias. Oswald wasn’t carrying a “Hidell” ID card in his wallet three months before in August 1963 when he was arrested in New Orleans for fighting with Cuban exiles disturbed by his  pro-Castro activism. After his arrest, Oswald said he was in touch with a fellow Castro supporter named “Hidell,” which was a lie.

Questions

If Oswald’s wallet containing the Hidell ID card was found on Oswald’s person on November 22, 1963, why do none of the contemporaneous police reports from that day say anything about “Hidell” or an ID card in another name besides Oswald’s?

Bentley did not say that the Hidell ID was in Oswald’s wallet until June 11, 1964. Bentley never testified to the Warren Commission.

The critical question is not whether you believe Oswald created the obviously false Selective Service card identifying him as Alek James Hidell.  (Genuine Selective Service cards did not include a photo.) He could have made the phony card in his job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, a photographic production company, where he worked for a few months starting in late 1962.

Another question is why would Oswald carry that card in his wallet on November 22? It wasn’t like he was seeking notoriety after JFK was killed. When asked later that day if he had shot the president, Oswald denied it.

Only on November 23 did the finding of the “Hidell” card become public knowledge in a statement made by Henry Wade, the Dallas district attorney.

That statement came just hours after the FBI allegedly discovered early on the morning of November 23 that “Hidell” had ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle thought to have been used in the assassination, and had it delivered to Oswald’s post office box address.

Wallet disputed

Mark Lane, the attorney hired by Lee Oswald’s mother, told the Warren Commission that the Hidell card was only found in the wallet after the discovery of Hidell’s mail order rifle purchase. Nonetheless, the Warren Commission refused to let Lane cross-examine the district attorney about the Hidell card and the rifle.

The Secret Service men present for the interrogation of Oswald in the Dallas Police Department headquarters on November 22 recalled no questions about the “Hidell” ID card. And it wasn’t like they were totally in the dark. Oswald had referred to a man named “Hidell” as a Fair Play for Cuba Committee leader and was asked about it on November 22.

From November 23 on, the witnesses who wrote reports on Nov. 22 slowly began to remember that Hidell’s ID was in Oswald’s wallet.

Almost everybody’s story was different, which is noteworthy.

Law enforcement officers are trained to include all relevant data in their reports. It’s hard to think of anything more relevant than the supposed finding of the Hidell ID in Oswald’s wallet on Nov. 22.

Were all these witnesses were given a secret order to not mention the Hidell name? Unlikely.

Was the Hidell ID planted in Oswald’s wallet on Nov. 23?

None of the five officers who drove Oswald from the Texas Theater to the police station mentioned Bentley’s discovery of the Hidell ID in their reports, including Bentley himself.

More than a week after November 22, Bentley’s report of Oswald’s arrest says only that “on the way to the city hall…. I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook’s office to make a report of the arrest.”

The date of the report was December 3, a rather disquieting 12-day delay, given Bentley’s claim that he went to Westbrook’s office to file a report immediately after the arrest. In any case, Bentley didn’t mention the Hidell ID.

Gerald Hill told the Warren Commission months later that Bentley had found the ID while en route to police headquarters, recalling that it was the same name that had been used to order the rifle. In contrast, hours after the Hidell ID was discovered, here’s what Hill told NBC:

HILL: The only way we found out what his name was was to remove his billfold and check it ourself; he wouldn’t even tell us what his name was….

Q: What was the name on the billfold?

HILL: Lee H. Oswald. O-S-W-A-L-D.

In a radio interview earlier that afternoon, Hill talked at length about Oswald’s time in the USSR and that he was a “communist.” Again he said nothing about the phony Hidell ID.

Bentley’s and Hill’s failure to remember the “Hidell” ID was contagious.

A review of the reports filed by other three officers that transported Oswald from the Texas Theater — Charles T Ford (Dec. 2, 1963), Bob Carroll (Dec. 3), and K.E. Lyons (Dec. 4) — shows that none said anything about finding the “Hidell” ID.

Yet several of them later told the Warren Commission that they remembered the card.

At 10 pm on Nov. 22, FBI agent Manning Clements questioned Oswald and reviewed the contents of his wallet on the desk. Clements said that the Hidell ID was inside the wallet at that time, but Oswald wouldn’t answer any questions about it. Clements’ inventory of wallet cites the Hidell ID, but was not dictated until Nov. 23.

Did Bentley plant the Hidell ID on Oswald on Nov. 22?

Another approach is to look at the consistent statements made by FBI agent Barrett that Westbrook asked him about both Oswald and Tippit at the Hidell murder scene.

JFK researcher Jones Harris suggested that it was logical for patrolmen to avoid referring to the Hidell IDs in their reports. Aliases were common but were not within many officers’ areas of expertise — the authenticity of something like the Hidell ID might be entrusted to a “bunko squad.”

With a horrified world watching on TV, there was pressure to cinch the case as fast as possible and Oswald was the only suspect. In such an atmosphere, it is not surprising they left this troublesome area alone. Even Captain Fritz himself was cautious. His notes indicate that he did not discuss the Hidell card with Oswald while in the presence of the FBI and Secret Service on the Nov. 22.

It was only safe for lower-ranked officers to discuss the Hidell ID after the FBI summary report of early Dec.1963 (known as CD 1.) affirmed that Oswald had the Hidell card on him at the time of his arrest.

What Hill did say

Jones Harris conducted extensive interviews with Gerald Hill, who worked in the Personnel Division with Westbrook. Harris says that Hill was a facts-oriented kind of guy, a reporter who became a policeman, and trusted what Hill told him.

Hill said that when he arrived at the Tippit crime scene, he was approached by an unknown witness. Hill said “the first man that came up to me, he said ‘The man who shot him was a white male about 5 foot 10 inches, weighing 160 to 170 pounds, had on a jacket and a pair of trousers, and brown bushy hair.’”

The height and weight match the inaccurate FBI/CIA Oswald description that was provided by an unknown man minutes after JFK was shot but before Tippit was shot. Hill never learned the man’s name. He turned him over to another officer, and no one knows his identity.

Hill said that he returned to the office at about 3 pm, planning to write his report while it was fresh in his mind. Westbrook came up to Hill and excitedly recounted a long story about Oswald being in the Marines, married to a Soviet citizen, being a defector, a “communist” (which no one else remembers) and more — all of which Hill repeated on the radio later that day, as heard at the beginning of this article.

For his part, Harris remembers Hill saying “I can assure you, Jones, that nobody in Homicide and Robbery sniffed Oswald’s pistol” to see if it had been recently fired. According to Harris, that was Hill’s way of saying that there was pressure to avoid creating any exculpatory evidence that would assist Oswald.

Harris also states that Westbrook had no crime investigation experience, did not wear a police uniform, and had no business being at either the Tippit crime scene or the Texas Theatre.

Because of Westbrook’s rank, he was in charge at both events. Hill was Westbrook’s confidant and cohort.  Who knew more about the secrets of the members of the Dallas Police Department than Captain Westbrook at Personnel?

Were Westbrook and Bentley working together? When Bentley examined Oswald’s wallet in the police car, did he slip the Hidell ID inside it?

These assumptions would explain a lot if the wallet examined by Westbrook at the Tippit murder scene was the same wallet that Bentley claimed to find in Oswald’s pocket after leaving the Texas Theatre. On the other hand, if there were two different wallets, these assumptions may explain why the wallets looked so much alike.

—————-

Who found Oswald’s Wallet? (April 21, 2014) was the best-read story on JFK Facts story for two weeks running.

The late Sylvia Meagher mapped out much of the above in her 1967 book, Accessories After the Fact.  Robert Charles-Dunne’s summary of her work was a big help, as was John Armstrong’s footwork in Harvey and Lee (2003) and the research of Jones Harris and Hasan Yusuf (who does not trust Gerald Hill).

More can be found in my online book State Secret.

My interest in the subject was sparked by this news report on the discovery of Oswald’s wallet, which aired on WFAA-TV in Dallas last November.

84 comments

  1. Fearfaxer says:

    I have long been fascinated by that Hidell draft card. I’m just old enough to have had such card myself, and the first time I saw the Hidell card, I immediately knew it was fake because of that photograph. Just why anyone would fabricate such an easily spotted fake ID is a mystery. After all, tens of millions of male US citizens had them in those days (including Oswald) and would know it was a forgery the moment they set eyes on it. I will say that strictly in technical terms it appears to be a good piece of work, and it’s easy to believe that Oswald might have made it while working at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall to practice his skills at counterfeiting — I wonder if he was also trying to forge passports, drivers licenses, etc., that have never been discovered or publicly acknowledged.

    At any rate, assuming Oswald actually did create this and have it on his person on 11/22, what was he doing with a fake ID that would have fooled no one?

  2. mball says:

    Also, as mentioned before, George O’Toole interviewed these men using a psychological stress evaluator. In his book, THE ASSASINATION TAPES, he made it clear that these guys stressed all over the place on significant parts of their stories. That is a strong indication of deception.

  3. Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

    Jim DiEugenio has dealt with the issue in his review of Shenon’s book. The handgun fired against Tippit was supposedly delivered to Oswald’s P.O. box by the Railway Express Agency (REA). By law, Oswald should have had to show both an ID and a certificate of good character to get it via mail transaction, while REA should had have to keep record, but there is neither a single record nor any receipt. As if the transaction never took place, there isn’t any evidence of payment to Seaport Traders (L.A., CA), which allegedly supplied the handgun. Only the wallet identification of LHO as Hidell linked the former with the purchaser of the handgun and also the rifle, which was shipped from Klein’s Sporting Goods (Chicago, IL)on the same day as the handgun, although both weapons were ordered months apart. It’s also missing the paperwork at the post office to certify receipt and nobody at the post office recalled having handed the rifle package to LHO, who must face the weird situation of having rented a P.O. box as Oswald for getting firearms ordered as Hidell. That’s a conspiracy fact in itself.

    • Jonathan says:

      Arnaldo,

      The Warren Commission defenders have a big problem with Tippit’s murder. It was committed with a pistol, all agree. Not a revolver. Oswald we’re told had a revolver. A pistol has a clip and fires rounds different from those fired by a revolver. These are FACTS.

      I like the way you shepherd facts. LRG likes facts (which he calls evidence) and so do I. In fact everyone here likes facts except those who find facts offensive to their theories.

  4. Neil says:

    Great work Bill.

    I’m sure the usual suspects will chime in soon to tell us how the Hiddell ID wasn’t mentioned in Gerald Hill or Paul Bentley’s original reports because it wasn’t important…

    • Gerry Simone says:

      A draft card in the name of AJH but showing LHO’s photo is obviously fake or suspicious but more importantly, somewhat incriminating!

      It’s simply bizarre if not incompetent that the existence of such an I.D. card found on the accused would be omitted in an initial police report.

  5. Jonathan says:

    The backyard photos are found on November 23. Clements makes an inventory entry for the Hidell “draft card” on that day.

    My thoughts about the Hidell “draft card”: Draft cards were ubiquitous in 1963. Every male had to register with Selective Service with one month after turning 18. This card was so obviously a fraud it wouldn’t have fooled anyone except someone who was clueless.

    Meaning to me its purpose wasn’t to fool anyone.

    It had one of two purposes. If it was found in Oswald’s wallet, it was a way for him to establish bona fides with a third person he needed to meet but didn’t know. No one else would have such a card. If it was planted in Oswald’s wallet, it is what it is: a plant. But why would the government if it wanted to frame Oswald plant such a phony item? It doesn’t make sense to me. Planting a legitimate-looking item wouldn’t raise eyebrows. That would make sense.

    I lean therefore toward the thought Oswald was carrying the photo-ID draft card as a way to identify him uniquely to unknown contacts he would need to meet. In this case, the person(s) evilly manipulating him would cause him to frame himself.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      It’s not the federal government that framed Oswald but certain persons either influenced by rogues or rogue members themselves of, or connected to, any one of these groups – DPD, CIA or the Mob.

      A phony-looking card would be a good plant because it would suggest that it wasn’t stolen and a totally fictitious fabrication by none other than the accused – Lee Harvey Oswald, the lone nut.

  6. Jonathan says:

    Sgt. Hill presents a remarkable coherent picture of Oswald the assassin. He could have written the Warren Report conclusions pretty much on the afternoon of the assassination. What a skillful cop. He should have been promoted right away to captain.

    Re Mark Lane and J. Lee Rankin: Lane asks Rankin for permission to cross examine Henry Wade as to the wallet. Rankin denies permission. Pointing out for all time that the Warren Commission was not a truth-seeking body.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I also pointed out that Walter E. Craig, who was the ABA President, was chosen to act as an advocate for LHO. He employed assistants too. I don’t recall reading anywhere how effective he or his underlings were as adversaries to the WC’s legal interrogators or staff.

      In fact, I’ve just discovered a link quoting Vincent Bugliosi that the devil’s advocate for LHO failed abysmally.

      http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6436.5;wap2

  7. echelon says:

    Jonathan writes:

    “My thoughts about the Hidell “draft card”. … This card was so obviously a fraud it wouldn’t have fooled anyone except someone who was clueless. Meaning to me its purpose wasn’t to fool anyone.

    But why would the government if it wanted to frame Oswald plant such a phony item? It doesn’t make sense to me. Planting a legitimate-looking item wouldn’t raise eyebrows. That would make sense.”

    How would Oswald holding a “genuine” (photo-less) draft card in the name of Hidell help the people who were planning to set him up? Surely, he could deny it had anything to with him – “I’ve never seen that before”, etc..

    Having his photo on the card ensured that he was tied to that name, and hence …. blah blah blah.

    Just a thought.

    • echelon says:

      P.S. Same applies to the backyard photos. A paper trail is all very well, but a bit – well – forensic.

      A photo is so much more convincing … Very emotive evidence, if needed.

  8. johnny hartley says:

    In addition to Westbrook being involved in the sudden appearance of the wallet, read through his Warren Commission testimony

    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/westbrook.htm

    about his discovery of the jacket linked to Oswald and the Tippit shooting, and he is remarkably vague about that provenance, suggesting to a questioning mind that he could have planted the wallet and jacket.

    • mball says:

      The whole story of that jacket is worth exploring. It’s amazing. No one wanted to be identified as the someone who had anything to do with that jacket. Westbrook couldn’t remember who handed it to him, one of the cops there saw another who supposedly found it, but didn’t know who it was – a guy who worked in the same motorcycle platoon as him for some time. Very shaky. The same thing for that sack supposedly found on the 6th floor that was supposed to be how the rifle was brought up there. Very shaky story, no one wanted to be the guy responsible for finding it.

  9. This is all very interesting.

    Because it clearly suggests that the dual ID was planted later by the DPD.

    But also that the Tippit wallet was covered up.

    If Bill is correct about this, then it certainly jibes with the lacunae of eyewitness and documentary evidence suggesting Oswald did not order the rifle or pick up the handgun at REA.

    • Photon says:

      Why is John McAdams being censored on this site?
      Is this site going the way of other conspiracy sites that simply cannot deal with the facts or the truth except by banning it?
      Why does it seem like Jim DiEugenio could see a man standing over a corpse with a butcher knife dripping blood and still think that man would be innocent because the cops couldn’t produce the sales slip from WalMart?
      You realize Jim that Professor McAdams has been prevented from answering you- presumably to spare your feelings,or some such issue.I had refrained from posting here after an obvious fraud was allowed to post a ridiculous story about a Mafia kingpin telling him the “truth” while in a hospital. This individual had no idea that there is a Federal Prison Hospital system that made his claim impossible. But it was posted anyway-yet documented facts from non-conspiracy sources are “moderated” into oblivion. Why?
      I question Jim’s powers of deduction- as he continues to think that I am “Paul May”-why I do not know, unless he finds it simply impossible to believe that someone else beside that gentleman could come to the same conclusion, which is at odds with his own. i have treated this subject as a hobby, a distraction from the life and death issues that I deal with daily- at a level much higher than most here can possibly fathom. But for Jim it is a living. Perhaps he sees me and others with my opinions as a threat to his business. That is understandable.

      • jeffmorley says:

        No. John McAdams is not being censored. Nor is anyone else.

        As I have explained to John, his comments are on 48 hour delay because he said, falsely, that his comments were being “censored.” They were being held, pending a discussion about his tone, a discussion I have had with other commenters. He also, falsely, that I had “caved in” to pressure from other people; I had not. He also called said that I had engaged in a “stupid stunt” which I had not.

        For this kind of uncivil language, the publication of his comments is delayed 48 hours until further notice, as stipulated by the site’s Comments Policy, which you can read here: http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/

        • Jonathan says:

          If John McAdams tried to post comments that contained false allegations or an offensive tone, why were those comments published? Seems to me they should have been held “awaiting moderation” and no sanction (i.e., 48-hour delay) imposed.

          If he attempted to violate site commenting policy, I don’t believe he should have been given the green light and then sanctioned for driving forward.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Jeff,

          It’s your site, you make the rules, but I respectfully disagree with your decision. IMO, withholding moderation approval so that all of someone’s posts go into limbo is definitely a form of censorship. Didn’t John use the word “censored” only *after* his posts started being withheld?

          If John’s posts were withheld because of complaints you’d received from other commenters and not because of anything specific that he said, I would call that “caving in to pressure.” Should I be put on a 48-hour delay also for agreeing with him? (Eventually maybe all the LNs here will be in 48-hour limbo, if others complain enough.)

          Last of all, is creating a new forum rule in response to complaints about one person really necessary or fair? What *old* forum rule did John break, if I may ask?

          IMO, anyone who doesn’t like John McAdams’ posts should suck it up or simply stop reading them.

          Again, this is just my opinion respectfully submitted FWIW, but I sincerely hope you will reconsider, Jeff. What’s wrong with the old policy of rejecting individual posts that cross the line?

          • jeffmorley says:

            Jean: you are laboring under a misapprehension. NONE OF JOHN’S POSTS HAVE BEEN CENSORED.
            Your notion that publication after 48 hours is “censorship” is silly. Its not censorship. Its punishment for John being uncivil to me.
            I did not delay his comments because of complaints from other readers. I delayed his comments because he accused me, falsely, of censoring his comments. (Did I mention? EVERY POST HE HAS SUBMITTED RECENTLY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED). He also accused me, falsely, of a “stupid stunt.”
            John is entitled to his views and they’re welcome on the site. (He’s been published more on my site than I have on him. Is that a sign of “censorship” Jean?)
            Now you may sey that the 48 hour delay rule is discriminatory–and you would be right. It discriminates against people who are rude to me.
            So tell me what exactly you disagree with?
            That I should publish all of John’s posts? I have.
            Do you think that I shouldn’t delay the comments of people who insult me?
            Well,then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I promise you and everybody else who reads this site: if you insult me, your posts will be put on 48 hour delay. That’s not “censorship” Jean. That’s enforcing good manners

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I haven’t read the policies and rules here, but it is common on many other discussion forums to suspend or even ban members (both temporarily or indefinitely).

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to Jeff:

            I post comments on a high-profile political site whose top dog is a high-profile political commentator. The insults he sometimes absorbs from site commenters are amazing; but the insults are water off a duck’s back.

            This is something of a political site. Political considerations are central to the JFK case.

            Seems to me that one who maintains a political blog site de facto invites the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

            I don’t see how it is possible to have a polite, civil, restrained conversation of the JFK assassination and make progress toward truth.

            JFK welcomes inflammatory commenters, with which I wholeheartedly agree. The last thing I’d want for this site is that it become an echo chamber. Inflammatory commenters are inflammatory. I say, withhold their comments if the comments offend site policy. A 48-hour delay makes no sense to me intellectually. As a commenter, I am deprived of interaction by the 48-hour delay policy.

            That’s just an observation.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jeff, This is your house. I’ve tossed people out of my own home in the past, I’ve also put them on notice that there are a few infractions that I don’t tolerate, and I’ve also been placed on notice by close friends in a reverse dynamic. I can only assume that you’ve enforced a “Time Out” on John McAdams with reason, and while I don’t follow the nuance of what has unfolded, in general I’m guessing that John crossed a line.

            The following is intended in the best of humor tinged with some slight chiding of you personally.

            Martin Niemoller said:

            “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Socialist.

            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Jew.

            Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.”

          • leslie sharp says:

            “IMO, anyone who doesn’t like John McAdams’ posts should SUCK IT UP (my emphasis) up or simply stop reading them.”

            Jeff, I’m fascinated that you tolerate this language.

            Could you please establish a standard and enforce it. Otherwise, no holds barred, and truly, from a public relations point of view, I advise you not to go down that road. Jean Davison has now also “crossed that line” in spite of your having positioned her as an icon of civility. I respect the argument that this forum should be opened up in the spirit of the Wild West, but I also think, having had experience with moderating, it places to heavy a burden on moderators – always a subjective exercise – unless it’s either black or white. Let ‘er rip, or let decorum influence the analysis of every comment. You can’t apply standards unless you apply them across the board, and I think Jean’s most recent inflammatory sentence crosses a line as well.

            The good news is, when advocates of Oswald’s guilt become this defensive, you Jeff must surely know you are pushing buttons.

          • Photon says:

            Jeff, I have been censored. Repeatedly. I can only assume that others have been, based on their statements.Based on my personal experience I find it difficult to believe that all of Professor McAdams’ comments have been posted.That is fine-it is your site, you can run it as you please. But I used to think that this site was special: an open forum for ideas, even from those despised by conspiracy theorists. But this site is in danger of becoming a moribund echo chamber for conspiracy theorists, no matter how outlandish the belief nor how completely devoid of possibility the allegations may be.Is that what you really want?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon, who said:

            But this site is in danger of becoming a moribund echo chamber for conspiracy theorists, no matter how outlandish the belief nor how completely devoid of possibility the allegations may be.Is that what you really want?

            Eloquently said Photon but your comment is based on the presumption that conspiracy theorists are dangerous or detrimental to the truth about the JFK Assassination, and that outlandish beliefs will also thrive if it were not for the input of lone assassin proponents/theorists.

            This site’s preamble or mission statement is predicated on fact-based discussion.

            Furthermore, the conspiracy camp is full of competing ideas (one only has to look at McAdams’ newgroup and witness Anthony Marsh criticize Robert Harris).

            Competition weeds out the weaker arguments or forces their proponents to furnish more evidence.

            (I believe even DiEugenio and Morley disagree with W & H’s premise that it was mostly a mob hit).

            So if there were nobody from the pro-WC side, I doubt this site would implode.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Photon, It could be argued that this site is in danger of nothing other than being accused of pandering to propagandists. Do you see how this works? The facts can’t speak for themselves, so propagandists resort to arguing over credentials and minutiae, in a desperate attempt to divide and conquer.

            The health of the site is that there appears to be a great deal of independence being exhibited here, not the least of which may well reside in its owners. You will note if you bother to take the time that I have frequently challenged Jeff Morley – in fact very early on I asked why Al Ulmer had not caught his attention as he wrote the Win Scott book – so there’s no consensus here other than a commitment to tease out every aspect of the investigation. But when one reviews the comments of those here that are convinced Oswald was a ‘lone nut,’ one sees a pattern. And as you know, I love patterns.

            The symbiosis between yourself, McAdams, Davison and to a degree Olmens is apparent. There is little else you can do but sing from the same Warren Report with the occasional hats off to the HSCA; otherwise each of you would be compelled to dig deeper, answer the discrepancies, consider seriously the significant contradictions – not those that can be explained away with a jacket or a piece of paper – but the real contradictions, and yet you ignore and or side step them, or worse, you disappear.

            I have NO problem confronting the facts that each of you present. I’ve become agnostic to the issue of your participation here; it truly is Jeff Morley’s decision. I do continue to have difficulty in trusting that you are here in good faith in search of the truth behind the assassination. I don’t expect you to agree there was a conspiracy; I do expect you to acknowledge the extreme flaws in the case against Oswald.

            For the record Photon, can you assure me personally that you do not have access to nor the inclination for pursuit of personal data mined by the NSA relating to any participant on this forum?

        • Photon says:

          We are now four days after the above. Where are the McAdams posts?
          Has he been banned after all?
          Will I be banned,too?

          • Moderator says:

            His comments were approved days ago.

          • Photon says:

            where?

          • Moderator says:

            The last comment he posted was on May 6. His comments before that, which were held up for a time, were also approved days ago. Don’t know of any others being held up.

          • jeffmorley says:

            No. John has not been banned. As John himself will confirm, virtually every post he has ever submitted to JFK Facts has been approved. As always your posts are welcome consistent with the site’s comment policy.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        Why do you and McAdams spend so much time on this site? If the ideas put forward by Jeff and others such as myself are as absurd as you claim, then surely the best course for someone such as yourself is to ignore them. The fact that the two of you spend so much time attempting to refute them, often with insulting language, suggests you’re aware of how much sense they make and are afraid they’ll persuade people that there’s more to Kennedy’s murder than has been officially acknowledged.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          It’s good to temper factoids and wild statements or theories with contributions from the opposite side of the debate (not to restrict this to just the CT side).

          Generally-speaking, some will say (as I’ve heard) that dissent does include dis-information and spin.

          Maybe that answers your question.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Not really. Disinformation and dishonesty are intended to make sites like this so toxic no reasonable person will view it. For example, Photon has posted one more claim that he’s been censored on this site. He hasn’t. He simply does not understand that the moderation process here can be lengthy, and in fact sometimes things stay in moderation indefinitely. That’s happened to me a couple of times, and I’m sure it was simply an oversight. But then Photon/Paul May (you can find posts with the latter handle in early 2013 comment threads and they sound just like Photon’s) most likely isn’t here for reasonable discussion but to make trouble.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Fearfaxer.

            I don’t want to point fingers, but it’s possible that some of the dissenters OR sometimes their dissent, sounds like infiltration by dis-informationists or spin artists for the pro-WC side.

            I think many participants here are aware of this possibility.

            But we shouldn’t bar commentators from the lone assassin camp. Good moderation* and rebuttal by participants will neutralize zany arguments but sometimes they will post factual counterpoints that are unquestionable.

            *(It is interesting to note that prior to McAdam’s moderated newsgroup, its unmoderated predecessor was a victim of so called Flame Wars. In this respect, I can see this happening if commentators cross the line and aren’t stopped.)

          • Photon says:

            Fearfaxer claims that I have not been censored. How could he possibly know? I have had multiple posts ” awaiting moderation ” for months- as I suspect others have. I have made comments about this in the past; when Jeff states that ” nobody is censored” he is being disingenuous .
            At least that is my perception. I also suspect that Fearfaxer is Jim DiEugenio posting under another name- when Jim is challenged he rarely answers, but Mr Faxer is always ready to defend him. Both posters are obsessed with the belief that I am Paul May. Neither one of them have recognized that I have already posted my name and it isn’t May.but then again, CTers have a bad habit of seeing not what is there, but what they want to be there .
            Free the Files! The John McAdams files!

          • leslie sharp says:

            Photon states: “Neither one of them have recognized that I have already posted my name and it isn’t May.”

            Have I missed something?

      • Fearfaxer says:

        Incidentally, I’ve seen posts from “Paul May” on some older comment threads on this site, and no one should have to apologize for assuming that you and he are the same person. Either your current handle is a Paul May sock puppet, or the two of you were identical twins separated at birth.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          If you know the writing style of the author well enough, you may be able to infer their identity or handle.

          So it’s possible but the identity of the source is irrelevant when the content alone infringes on a forum’s policies.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Moderated, not censored, from what I have just read.

        How can you ridicule James DiEugenio’s logic with such a silly non-analogy?

        Threaten his business you say? Is that some sort of sleight commonly used by lone assassin proponents against pro-conspiracy authors? What about Bugliosi, Posner, McAdams, and Willens? Aren’t they in the same business?

        Jim’s real business is historical truth and educating the public. He does so at his personal expense and hard work, without any notoriety or hand outs.

        [Not that anyone needs to defend James DiEugenio but I couldn’t resist].

    • KenS says:

      Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but J. E. Hoover knew about the Hidell draft card on 11/22. See Mary Ferrell JFK archive document FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 1 page 9, where SACs in New Orleans and Dallas are asked to investigate the Hidell subject and Dallas in particular the selective service card.

        • Michael Hogan says:

          The detailed Hidell information was furnished to the FBI by Lt Col. Robert E. Jones.

          That directive to the Dallas FBI office carefully stated that the Hidell Selective Service card was
          “allegedly in possession of Oswald.”

          Interesting choice of word.

          According to the HSCA, the Hidell information furnished by Jones “suggested the existence of a military intelligence file on Oswald and raised the possibility that he had intelligence associations of some kind.”

          That HSCA report also stated:

          “Access to Oswald’s military intelligence file, which the Department of Defense never gave to the Warren Commission, was not possible because the Department of Defense had destroyed the file as part of a general program aimed at eliminating all of its files pertaining to nonmilitary personnel.”

          The HSCA concluded:

          “The committee found this “routine” destruction of the Oswald file extremely troublesome, especially when viewed in light of the Department of Defense’s failure to make this file available to the Warren Commission. Despite the credibility of Jones’ testimony, without access to this file, the question of Oswald’s possible affiliation with military intelligence could not be fully resolved.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            The HSCA interviewed Jones. Its discussion starts at the bottom of this page:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=800&relPageId=251

            On Nov. 22 Jones recognized Oswald’s name on the news and called the FBI to tell them what he had in a file that he said was started after Oswald’s arrest in N.O., when he received information from the NOPD. Many intelligence groups shared information and routinely sent copies of reports. Oswald got on this chain letter (so to speak) when he defected.

            Oswald’s Army file wasn’t singled out to be destroyed. In the 1970s the media found out that the military had been collecting information on civilians, causing public outrage, so the Dept. of Defense ordered that all its intelligence files on civilians (many thousands of them) be destroyed. It was a big story at the time.

          • Michael Hogan says:

            “Oswald’s Army file wasn’t singled out to be destroyed.”

            Obviously it should have been “singled out”
            to retain.

            The HSCA certainly thought so:

            “The committee found this “routine” destruction of the Oswald file extremely troublesome, especially when viewed in light of the Department of Defense’s failure to make this file available to the Warren Commission.”

  10. Sandy K. says:

    LHO can walk into a 1963 gun shop, gun show, swap meet, etc., and buy a rifle without the purchase being traced back to him. Yet he buys a mail order rifle using the Hidell fake name, creating paper trail #1. He must pick up the rifle at a post office, creating paper trail #2. After his premeditated shooting of the President he is running around with the incriminating Hidell ID still in his wallet. LHO was as dumb as a box of rocks. Or the patsy he said he was.

    • Neil says:

      “LHO was as dumb as a box of rocks. Or the patsy he said he was.”

      That’s really what it all comes down to. Either Oswald was an extremely incompetent criminal leaving incriminating evidence everywhere or he was framed.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        He was the smartest ‘dumbest’ person for he learned Russian, served at a radar installation, and could speak on a radio show about Marxist or Communist theory.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Excellent post Sandy and also an argument made by author and researcher, Michael T. Griffith

    • If you read Fiester’s Enemy of Truth I am astounded (when I believed cherry tree nonsense) by the total lack of procedural adherence to 1963 crime scene protocols. And these are not Fiester’s constructions, she uses testimony from the Warren Commission interviews of police officers on the scene who moved boxes, put casings in pockets, did not thoroughly photograph the scene.

      And the assertion that “they caught their man” influenced every aid and abet decision in the case and in the cut and pasty obstruction of justice final report.

      The old shoehorn investigative procedural trajectory pretzel-making crime-copping single bullet gymnastic pristine planted gurney out of a hat clumsy Jack Ruby loved Jackie Warren report as the Maltese Falcon B fiction narrative has Philip Marlowe spinning so fast in his grave, electrodes attached to his casket now light Los Angeles.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        They also failed to close Dealey Plaza to traffic for something like 40 minutes after the murder. That’s one more egregious lapse in protocol, possibly the worst one.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Sandy K. Succinctness must be your forte. I hope to learn from your approach.

  11. Jean Davison says:

    A big problem with claiming the Hidell card was planted is that the record indicates that Oswald was asked about the card and acknowledged that he was carrying it. His response is mentioned in Fritz’s notes: “adm having but would not admit signature — wouldn’t say why he had it.”

    http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz4-5.jpg

    The FBI agent who went through his wallet on 11/22 said Oswald “declined to explain” the Hidell card.

    https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=638

    Oswald’s reaction to being questioned about the card during interrogation was also mentioned by (if I remember correctly) the FBI’s Bookhout and Kelley of the Secret Service.

    It really takes some chutzpah to plant something on a living suspect, doesn’t it?

    • Jonathan says:

      I agree. Oswald was carrying the photo selective service card; it wasn’t planted in his arrest wallet.

      Hidell was the fictitious President of the NOLA FPCC, which Oswald founded. So the Hidell-Oswald connection is clear. What’s not clear is why someone — Oswald or another — wanted to make it appear Oswald WAS Hidell. Oswald had no apparent reason to create the appearance he and Hidell were the same person. He had sought to do just the opposite in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

      The only explanation that makes sense to me (and yes, I’m on what you call the CT side of the fence) is that (a) the NOLA FPCC was a charade, part of some cover story; and (b) the photo draft card was a part of the charade.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      That record was written well after the fact by its author who is a little suspect too.

    • Again….Jean, as I have asked all who take your position, who of the DPD, FBI, or SS, filed a timely incident report stating what employee of any of those three law enforcement organizations, or any other similiar org., recovered any Hidell ID from a wallet found on Oswald’s person. No first person, written report of a discoverer of said ID was filed. Fritz testified he kept no interrogation notes, and the testimony of Harry D Holmes reinforced this. Holmes testified he and Fritz knew better than to keep notes,mindful they would be surrendered to trial defense in discovery. The FBI agent’s report you linked to describes the FBI SA simply seeing a wallet on Fritz’s desk, prompted by an unidentified DPD officer as to the wallet’s contents. Jean, Oswald was killed in DPD custody in their HQ. Are you at all curious as to why the alleged discoverer/recoverer of Hidell ID from a wallet in Oswald’s possession on 22 November is not himself on record on this matter until June, 1964? Are you using the same standard of skepticism you might use if your son was accused by unidentified police of possessing an incriminating item not decribed in a timely, or even a late written report filed by the discoverer or anyone in his company at the time of said discovery, and then your son was murdered while in the custody of this LEO in their HQ, less than 48 hours later?
      What on earth, given these actual facts, influences you to post in such enthusiastic acceptance of disturbingly compromised LEO procedure and transparency?

      • Jean Davison says:

        Tom,

        The FBI agent’s report doesn’t simply describe the wallet. It says that when Oswald was questioned about the Hidell card he “declined to explain his possession” of it:
        https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=638

        The next pages in that link list the contents of the wallet — about a dozen different cards, plus photos. Did Bentley or anyone else go through all this carefully on 11/22 and write it up? Evidently not. But Kelley, Bookhout, and Fritz all reported that Oswald was asked about the Hidell card the following day. E.g., last paragraph here:

        https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=651

        How do you explain the frame-up crew’s actions, planting a card that Oswald could’ve vehemently denied was his (but didn’t, according to the record)?

        Do you think that every scrap of evidence against Oswald, every action he took that made him look guilty, can be explained some other way (other than the obvious conclusion that he’s guilty)? I’d like to hear that story sometime, showing how the frame-up crew might have done it step by step. Should be a doozy.

        You and many others see Oswald as a victim. I see him as the guy who blew Kennedy’s brains out.

        • Bill Pierce says:

          Jean Davison writes:
          “You and many others see Oswald as a victim. I see him as the guy who blew Kennedy’s brains out.”

          I see him as the guy who killed Tippit (in a panic situation) but not Kennedy. No need to lay out all the information (evidence?) in each instance. It’s been done to death.

          Why was the government so worried about Oswald having confederates? Suppose investigators discovered two or three other unaffiliated Lefties? What’s the problem? Well, Oswald didn’t hang around Lefties but so what? Suppose Oswald and Ruby (and a few others?) carried out JFK’s murder. Was the government worried that a thorough investigation of those two characters would lead to something explosive or embarrassing? Lone Nutters don’t seem to think so. According to LNs, Oswald and Ruby were just two wired-up guys goin’ crazy on an ordinary weekend in the ‘City of Hate’.

          Why didn’t the government release Katzenbach’s memo the day it was written? Why not show citizens exactly how the government intended to investigate the case? Why suppress the the Zapruder film? When it was finally shown in 1976, no one went insane because of the horror. The Kennedy family didn’t pitch a fit. (and if it had, so what?)

          All of us know the answers to those questions, don’t we?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bill,

            Was “the government” really “so worried about Oswald having confederates”? Look at the last two sentences in Hoover’s 11/22 message to his agents in Dallas and N.O. in the document mentioned earlier:

            “…MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO DEVELOP FURTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING ALEX HIDELL, ANA [SIC] HIDELL, AND A.J. HIDELL. IF LOCATED INTERVIEW THOROUGHLY CONCERNING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF OR POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION IN PLOT TO ASSASSINATE THE PRESIDENT.”

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62251&relPageId=9

            If Katzenbach was ordering a coverup, as CTs argue, why was his memo released at all? But I don’t read his memo the same way or give it the importance some do.

            Since I don’t agree with your premises, Bill, I can’t really answer the questions you ask. Most “why” questions require reading someone’s mind, which I can’t do. I certainly can’t read “the government”‘s mind, if it even has one!

      • Tom. First…Hello. I read your conversation and I was confused by your remarks that read..’Fritz testified he kept no interrogation notes, written report…’. He may have testified to that before the WC (or maybe he didn’t….) but there is a written record of his interrogation/conversation with Oswald during the course of the weekend. Here is a link to it:

        http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1101

        Also, I compared these notes to James P. Hosty’s notes, also ‘rediscovered in later decades’. First, I don’t believe Hosty for a second. Not even a second. There is not a single notation in his notes of ANYTHING AT ALL that appears to be different that what was written by Captain Fritz. Actually…and I laughed at this aspect of it. It’s almost like Hosty made his remarks by looking at the transcript of the remarks Fritz made. I also noted that, even though Hosty came ‘late’ to the meeting with LHO/Fritz, “his” notes start with the same notations. How can this be??? He wasn’t there at the start. However…IT CAN BE if he sat down years later and copied SOME of them. I feel pretty certain he did that. In any case….there are notes on M. Farrells page that are interesting.

        More importantly, check out this link and tell let me know HOW IT CAN BE POSSIBLE to write this up at 1:40 pm on 11/22/63…when LHO was only a guy missing from a TSBD Roll Call (with others I may add).

        http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0133a.htm

        • PS…note that Capt. Fritz signed Ruby’s Arrest Form. Also note that LHO’s is NOT SIGNED!!

          • Gerry Simone says:

            That’s because he wrote it after LHO was murdered.*

            *I don’t recall exactly where, but I’ve read that Fritz wrote those notes after the fact.

  12. Michael Hogan says:

    The failure of the Dallas police or any of the law enforcement agencies to record Oswald’s interrogations was inexcusable.

    Legally, morally and historically indefensible.

  13. Bill Simpich says:

    Ken,

    This is a great find. The memo indicates that it was written by Fletcher D. Thompson.
    a key investigator that Hoover relied on. This is the first November 22 document I am aware of that reports
    The hidell card, after none of the officers in the car had reported it.

    Did Thompson get this info in a call from Clements, or
    Someone else? How did he know of its existence?

    • KenS says:

      An accidental find, as it turns out. I was looking for something else. But thanks. I, too, wondered how Hoover knew when he did.

  14. Fearfaxer says:

    One other thing about that phony draft card, which you can see here as Warren Commission Exhibit 795:

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_795.pdf

    The photo seems to be one of Oswald taken in Minsk (the one labeled as Warren Commission Exhibit 2892):

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0191b.htm

    Was having a 4 year-old photo on it supposed to give it some kind of credibility? (“I got this after I left the Marines, it’s obviously not recent, look at it, see how much less hair I have in front now?”)

  15. Stanley says:

    You make a profound point. If Oswald fabricated the ID to stay under the radar for his support of FPCC, then why frame that alias by ordering guns with it and then using them? If he was just a LN’r and made a manic decision to abandon FPCC and take the assassination route, then why keep it? If he had any thoughts of getting away, why carry around a white hot potato like the Hidell ID? That level of incompetence appears inconsistent with the way he was operating right up to the moment he was taken into custody, and immediately thereafter. Seems more likely the only reason he had it on him was because he wasn’t planning on doing anything particularly risky that day and it still had some level of significance in the context of his “legitimate daily activities” (as a patsy that is).

  16. Bill Simpich says:

    I think the secret of the Hidell ID may be that it was inside the wallet that was handed to Croy
    and eventually Westbrook at the Tippit crime scene.

    I am leaning towards the theory of two wallets, but
    not two Hidell IDs. I think the Hidell ID in wallet number
    one wound up in wallet number two.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Just from what I’ve read, your work not included, – yet, I agree.
      For What It’s Worth as they say these day’s IMHO.

      • http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=29104

        I think the record of the interrogation of Oswald supports Officer Roger Craig’s video testimony. I don’t know who wrote this above report but says they found the shells and then the rifle partially under some boxes and guarded them until they could be photographed (Waiting for the movie guys?) and then they were told about Tippit and had to leave. Now there are two videos of the rifle in the 6th floor but spliced together.
        The first with Roger watching is bad lighting but shows officer Craig present when he says they all agreed it was a German Mauser and wrote it down (the press reported the Mauser until the next morning). OK, so some including Roger Craig leave to see about Tippit shooting and then the next video is clear and bright with Roger and others gone and showing Day picking up the rifle again and looking at it and showing it but they are two different videos with different lighting and sharpness and maybe cameras.

        So they guarded the Shells too? Roger said he saw the shells three in a row lined up like they were placed there. That is how I remember the video on Roger and I think it is still around… I hope.

    • KenS says:

      I believe the Hidell selective service card was used to ID Oswald to a third party, a person who would not know US SS cards had no photo, or to whom it would not matter. The card was surrendered by Oswald to that third party, who then, through confederates, passed the card to Croy in the wallet at the Tippit murder scene to implicate Oswald as the killer, not knowing that the SS card would be recognized as a false document. I don’t think anyone other than Oswald and this other person was intended to see the card. That the card eventually found its way to his own wallet at DPD HQ must have been quite a shock to Oswald. No wonder he didn’t want to talk about it.
      As an aside, I believe the “cop killing”, while planned as one contingency, was only put into action as a response to an error in the original assassination plan.

  17. I sure wish I could get an explanation for the time this document was written and well as the narration of the events on the reason for it being written. 1:40pm??? Was Oswald even in custody at that point? If you rule out the story of the 10th and Patton Wallet…the police would only know that LHO was a missing employee of the TSBD.

    http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0133a.htm

    Comments please. 😉

  18. mball says:

    A slight aside fromm the selective service card, but has anyone read the LaFontaine’s research on another card that Oswald was apparently carrying when arrested – Dept. of Defense card (DD-1173)? It was logged by FBI SA Manning Clements, along with the notorious selective service card. The picture on that card was the same as that on the sel. serv. card, but with Oswald’s name on it. The card apparently was only ever published in Jesse Curry’s book about the assassination; the WC did not publish it. To summarize: the card was issued at Oswald’s discharge from the marines; on the back it was stamped “If found, drop in any mailbox”, and it had at least one postmark on it dated Oct. 23, 1963; inasmuch as Oswald had it in his possession on 11/22, the card must have been returned to him by DoD on or after 10/23/63; their research with the Marines/DoD determined that that particular card, usually given to military dependants, was sometimes given to civilians needing military ID overseas. The book is OSWALD TALKED by Ray and Mary LaFontaine. Their work on the Odio story is very controversial. But the research on this card seems to be pretty thorough. The Chapter is HOUSE OF CARDS. Very interesting, FWIW.

  19. Bill Simpich says:

    John Kirsch,

    I think that the American people stood up and shouted like you say at least twice in this case. Once was when we got to see the Zapruder film – the resulting outcry led to the creation of the HSCA during that congressional session. The other was when Stone’s film asked for letters to free the files – I don’t have the stats, but Eric Hamburg wrote that this was one of the strongest outpouring of handwritten letters on any issue to Congress and resulted in the ARRB.

    So we’ve had our chances – getting the files and an ongoing process of inquiry is coming down to the finish line of 2017. We’ll see how we do.

    As Jonathan said, I would also point to a few things we have learned in the last twenty years: 1) The planting of the wallet;
    2) The magic bullet found on the stretcher disappeared from evidence after being marked by three officers; 3) new depositions in the 1990s harmonizing statements from the medical personnel in Bethesda and Dallas, showing that JFK had a blowout wound in the back of the head; 4) Vince Palamara’s research establishing Secret Service complicity, particularly in their repeated failures to protect the President or the crime scene evidence; 5) The Air Force One tapes, showing that Oswald was declared to be the lone assassin by a high national authority (McGeorge Bundy? Oliver Hallett?) by 4 pm on November 22; 6) The tapes purportedly having Oswald’s voice in Mexico City survived the assassination; 7) Oswald was impersonated on the phone in Mexico City.

    The combination of this planted evidence and the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City moves us closer to the solution of this case.

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