Bullets, Magic & other
thali...@hotmail.com
by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke bones and
came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily fluids on
it (and with its grooves intact - a miracle event against all odds)
and the other bullet allegedly used by Oswald on Kennedy disintegrated
on impact? How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a
different fashion from each other?
Herbert Blenner
The bullet that struck President Kennedy in the head did not fragment upon
first impact upon the skull. Instead the bullet made regularly shaped
holes in the scalp and the bone. Fragmentation occurred after entry into
the cranial vault. Now that is something to raise your eyebrow since
deformation must precede fragmentation.
Herbert
yeuhd
> different fashion from each other?
First of all, the bullet that hit both JFK and Connally was not "virtually
unscathed". It was flattened lengthwise, slightly twisted, had lead
protruding from its base like a toothpaste tube, and had lost about four
grains of weight:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0219b.htm
Just as cars that crash at high speeds get smashed up much more severely
than those that crash at slow speeds, the bullet that penetrated JFK and
Connally was slowed down considerably before it hit any hard surface. It
went through soft tissue in JFK's back and neck (there is a possible
hairline fracture in C-7, but its cause is disputed), and when penetrating
Connally's chest made only a glancing, tangenital blow to one of his ribs.
The rib fracture occurred not at the point of impact (which only pushed
the rib forward), but further up the rib toward the spine:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0080a.htm
By the time the bullet struck and shattered Connally's wrist, much of its
velocity was gone. In addition, the bullet may have been tumbling as it
penetrated his chest, and struck his wrist broadside, absorbing its impact
energy onto a broader surface (hence the lateral flattening). The HSCA
wrote: "The [autopsy] panel (except for Dr. Wecht) concludes, therefore,
that the wound in Governor Connally was probably inflicted by a missile
which was not alined with its trajectory but had yawed or tumbled prior to
its entry into the Governor."
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0077b.htm
On the other hand, the bullet that struck JFK's head met skull bone head
on at its first impact, and again struck skull bone on exit.
To summarize: the type of tissue and bone involved, the types and order of
wounds involved, the velocity and trajectory of the bullets involved, were
significantly different for the two bullets.
Jas
Ok, I'll play along on this one, even though it's been asked and explained
within the context of the Kennedy assassination at least 5,000 times since
1963.
Quite simply, the odds dictate -- and are astronomical -- that no 2
bullets will end up the same way, even when hitting the same kind of
target and with the exact same weapon and ammunition and range. You must
know that by now...
In the Kennedy shooting there were two different types of targets, one
involved two human bodies, and the other, one human head. These different
types of targets, although both human bodies, obviously contributed to the
differences.
If you're looking for numbers, you can probably ask Herbert Blenner, or
other mathematicians here what the odds are that two bullets will come out
exactly the same.
Actually, I'd like to see that too...
James
<thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d643af6d-7d5a-4731...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
thali...@hotmail.com
> thaliacole asked: "How do Lone Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets
> allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke
> bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily
> fluids on it (and with its grooves intact - a miracle event against all
> odds) and the other bullet allegedly used by Oswald on Kennedy
> disintegrated on impact? How could two bullets supposedly the same react
> in such a different fashion from each other?"
>
> Ok, I'll play along on this one, even though it's been asked and explained
> within the context of the Kennedy assassination at least 5,000 times since
> 1963.
>
> Quite simply, the odds dictate -- and are astronomical -- that no 2
> bullets will end up the same way, even when hitting the same kind of
> target and with the exact same weapon and ammunition and range. You must
> know that by now...
>
> In the Kennedy shooting there were two different types of targets, one
> involved two human bodies, and the other, one human head. These different
> types of targets, although both human bodies, obviously contributed to the
> differences.
>
> If you're looking for numbers, you can probably ask Herbert Blenner, or
> other mathematicians here what the odds are that two bullets will come out
> exactly the same.
>
> Actually, I'd like to see that too...
>
> James
>
>
> news:d643af6d-7d5a-4731...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > How do Lone Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets allegedly used
> > by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke bones and
> > came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily fluids on
> > it (and with its grooves intact - a miracle event against all odds)
> > and the other bullet allegedly used by Oswald on Kennedy disintegrated
> > on impact? How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't expect them to be the same!! Please don't twist what I am saying
to suit your own agenda. However, you wouldn't expect one bullet to be
virtually perfect (and yes I know there was lead squeezed out and it was
slightly flattened - that could happen by firing the bullet into water or
cotton wadding) and the other to disintegrate. It seems more likely that
two different bullets were used. In fact I think it is more likely that
CE399 was a bullet that struck Kennedy in the back and fell out (that,
however, doesn't explain no bodily matter being found on the bullet.)
Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front. Then another sniper using a
dum dum bullet got Kennedy in the head.
PS How does a bullet do so much damage (at least to Connally) and still
have its grooves intact? Unheard of! I 'spose it is just another one of
those unlikely happenings in a long line of unlikely happenings you must
believe in order to be a Lone Nut believer.
thali...@hotmail.com
So you think it was dum dum bullet?
David Von Pein
It's been proven that MC/WCC ammunition WILL react in just exactly the
same general ways that Lee Harvey Oswald's two bullets did on November 22,
1963. Bullet tests were done by Dr. Olivier for the Warren Commission, and
even better tests were done by John Lattimer using Oswald's ammunition:
http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
And then there's the "test" bullet from the 2004 program "JFK: Beyond The
Magic Bullet", which generally looks the same as CE399 -- i.e., it ended
up COMPLETELY INTACT (NOT FRAGMENTED at all) after striking pretty much
the same parts of two "bodies", with the nose still rounded, just like
399:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
PARTIAL REPLAY:
>>> "How do Lone [Assassin] Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets
allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke
bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily
fluids on it (and with its grooves intact - a miracle event against all
odds)..." <<<
Here's another look at the Discovery Channel's SBT test bullet (two views
actually). This "Beyond The Magic Bullet" MC/WCC test missile smashed
through two bodies and broke THREE bones (2 ribs and 1 wrist bone).
Voila!
THE GROOVES ARE COMPLETELY INTACT! Another myth handily debunked:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6722.jpg
ANOTHER PARTIAL REPLAY:
>>> "How do Lone [Assassin] Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets
allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke
bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily
fluids on it..." <<<
"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have any
blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that must
have been on it were removed by someone early on...almost as a matter of
course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in murder cases
during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible blood on them. ....
"Interestingly, [Robert] Frazier [of the FBI] testified that with
respect to the two main bullet fragments found in the presidential
limousine [CE567 and CE569], "there was a very slight residue of blood or
some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination"." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 425 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
Herbert Blenner
>
> - Show quoted text -
No
Herbert
Jas
you had already made up your mind as to the answer? This leads me to believe
you are simply taunting the point by "asking" the question just so you can
cork off with conspiracy rants.
I didn't say they would be "exactly" alike, I was simply pointing out that
the odds say no two bullets, even two of the same caliber, weight, load, and
manufacturer, will ever come out the same. One may be smashed up entirely,
another of the same bullet may be warped, flattened, bent, fragmented, or
any combination thereof. And each time you fire a pair of the same type of
bullets, those two bullets will end up with totally different
characteristics as the previous two, and so on. The only visual
characteristics that will remain constant among all the bullets are, if
fired from the same weapon, the rifling marks and the lands and grooves, but
those are only identifiable if a bullet remains intact enough to be able to
see these under a microscope.
In the Kennedy case the bullet that struck him in the head fragmented
because, generally speaking, the human head and skull is a much denser
object than the softer flesh of the two bodies that CE399 passed through,
excepting of course the bones it glanced off of in Connally's torso and
wrist.
Just because the two bullets ended up differently in the Kennedy case
absolutely does not in any way mean they were two different types of
bullets, as you proposed.
James
<thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6072f829-d564-4581...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "How do Lone [Assassin] Theorists reconcile that one of the bullets
> allegedly used by Oswald smashed through two men, their clothes and broke
> bones and came out the other end virtually unscathed, with no bodily
> fluids on it (and with its grooves intact - a miracle event against all
> odds) and the other bullet allegedly used by Oswald on Kennedy
> disintegrated on impact? How could two bullets supposedly the same react
> in such a different fashion from each other?" <<<
>
>
> It's been proven that MC/WCC ammunition WILL react in just exactly the
> same general ways that Lee Harvey Oswald's two bullets did on November 22,
> 1963. Bullet tests were done by Dr. Olivier for the Warren Commission, and
> even better tests were done by John Lattimer using Oswald's ammunition:
>
> http://i1.tinypic.com/44t3b0n.jpg
>
> And then there's the "test" bullet from the 2004 program "JFK: Beyond The
> Magic Bullet", which generally looks the same as CE399 -- i.e., it ended
> up COMPLETELY INTACT (NOT FRAGMENTED at all) after striking pretty much
> the same parts of two "bodies", with the nose still rounded, just like
> 399:
>
Not exactly, but close enough for a WC defender.
Henry Hurt also produced an intact bullet by firing it into a water tank.
Law enforcement does that every day to create test bullets.
Anthony Marsh
Unheard of? You obviously have never done any shooting. It happens all
the time. Law enforcement fires bullets into cotton wadding or water to
produce test bullets to compare. No damage.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 15, 10:36 am, thaliac...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a
>> different fashion from each other?
>
> First of all, the bullet that hit both JFK and Connally was not "virtually
> unscathed". It was flattened lengthwise, slightly twisted, had lead
> protruding from its base like a toothpaste tube, and had lost about four
> grains of weight:
>
Close. A little over 2 grains.
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0219b.htm
>
> Just as cars that crash at high speeds get smashed up much more severely
> than those that crash at slow speeds, the bullet that penetrated JFK and
> Connally was slowed down considerably before it hit any hard surface. It
Going through Kennedy would slow it down less than 200 fps.
> went through soft tissue in JFK's back and neck (there is a possible
> hairline fracture in C-7, but its cause is disputed), and when penetrating
> Connally's chest made only a glancing, tangenital blow to one of his ribs.
The bullet did not hit sideways.
thali...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I havent made up my mind about all the facts surrounding the case. I
do believe in conspiracy, I do not deny that. I have not, as yet, spent a
great deal of time examining the ballistics in the case, and as I think of
a question, I post it. There were lots of "fragments" found, including in
the limosine, in Connally's thigh and wrist and apparently a bullet or
bullet fragment that was big enough to be heard fell out onto the floor
during Connally's operation (according to Connally's autobiography)
Connally dies with bullet fragments still embedded in his thigh. But, we
have this mysterious, almost pristine bullet found on someone elses
stretcher in Parkland with no organic material on it (it should have has
something on it to begin with) and only four grams lighter! C'mon!!
Hoover said in a report that the bullet fragments found and tested, were
"similar" in composition. Sorry, they need to be identical.
Please reread your post. You said, "If you're looking for numbers, you can
probably ask Herbert Blenner, or other mathematicians here what the odds
are that two bullets will come out exactly the same.
Actually, I'd like to see that too..."
Again, I don't expect them to be exactly the same. Lots of bullets go
through heads without disintegrating, bullets are designed not to splinter
(which is considered cruel) Dum Dum bullets are outlawed by the Geneva
convention. But the bullet that hit Kennedy behaved like a dum dum.
thali...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am sorry Anthony, I do not get your post. My point is that it seems
highly unlikely that a bullet would go through two men and their clothes,
and break bones, and still have its grooves.
You claim that you can fire a bullet into water and cotton and the bullet
will still have it's grooves. I agree it seems possible in that case. You
are comparing apples to oranges.
HPW...@gmail.com
Simple. It was a plant used to frame Oswald.
yeuhd
> > How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a
> > different fashion from each other?
>
> Simple. It was a plant used to frame Oswald.
If it was a "plant" --
1. Why would someone plant a bullet in the condition that CE399 was,
inviting decades of skepticism?
2. How did the person(s) get the barrel markings of Oswald's rifle on
the bullet?
3. How would the person(s) planting the bullet know how many bullets
would be recovered in surgery and in the limousine, and thus whether
CE399 would be one bullet too many?
David Von Pein
>>> "Unheard of? You obviously have never done any shooting. It happens all the time. Law enforcement fires bullets into cotton wadding or water to produce test bullets to compare. No damage." <<<
That's not the same thing at all. The question asked by "Thaliac"
doesn't equate to the police firing only into a water tank or cotton
to obtain a test bullet...because OBVIOUSLY the cops would not want to
disfigure the bullet or eliminate its "grooves" when test-firing it;
hence, they won't fire it into human bones.
(Time for a "Duh" here, I think.)
But I've proven that "Thaliac's" thinking is 100% wrong too, via the
photos of the Discovery Channel test bullet, which is a 6.5/FMJ/MC/WCC
bullet that DID break three bones in a mock-up of John Connally's body
in 2004, with that missile emerging with its grooves perfectly
"readable" and "intact".
Why this question even comes up is anybody's guess. Surely, Thaliac
has seen the pictures of that Disc. Ch. test bullet many times in the
past. Right? .....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6722.jpg
But, like most conspiracy-hungry theorists, ignoring the obvious is
usually the preferred method....versus using your eyes (and a little
bit of CS&L [Common Sense & Logic]).
thali...@hotmail.com
Answers:
1. They knew that, as long as the bullet had been proven to be fired
by Oswald's rifle, the authorities would not question the condition of
the bullet too much (which is true - the govt accepted CE399, it is
the skeptics that go, hang on a minute, let's look a bit deeper....)
2. Oswald was a well set-up patsy. The conspirators would have had
access to Oswald's gun, or would have taken it out of his garage while
he was at work. One of teh conspirators could have gone shooting with
Oswald and taken a used bullet. This is not known, but there are
multiple ways Oswald's rifle could have been procured.
3. The government was in charge of the autopsy, and any bullets or
bullet fragments recovered would have been handed over to the FBI,
Secret Service etc. It is then a matter of manipulating the evidence.
For example, Connally wrote in his autobiography that a bullet or
large bullet fragment was found while he was on the operating table.
Where did this bullet go? My memory is a bit hazy on the following
point, but I read recently that a scientist who was given access to
the bullet fragments in teh case was gven a tin which contained, guess
what? No bullet fragments, so he had nothing to compare. Kennedy's
brain is missing. There are "splices" in the Zapruder film. There is
overwhelming evidence that evidence in the case was tampered with.
The autopsy was completely stuffed up - how could that happen? Lone
Nut theorists accept all this as just one of the things... CTers see a
demonstrated pattern.
I think that the Government expected the WC to just be "accepted"
after all it was the 1960's and Americans had not seen a lot of
political scandal at that time. To a large extent it was true, but
unfortunately for the Government, the people were expected to believe
a lot of "unlikely" things such as one bullet causing all the
injuries, coming out the other end in pristine condition, and then
seeing Kennedy on The Z film in the 1970's, with his head jerking
backwards despite being allegedly shot from behind.
curtjester1
> On May 16, 9:37 pm, HPW...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a
> > > different fashion from each other?
>
> > Simple. It was a plant used to frame Oswald.
>
> If it was a "plant" --
>
> 1. Why would someone plant a bullet in the condition that CE399 was,
> inviting decades of skepticism?
>
bumbled all the time. They just denied, stonewalled, or covered-up.
Just like the library card found on Oswald...the ol' hot potato
routine.
> 2. How did the person(s) get the barrel markings of Oswald's rifle on
> the bullet?
>
If they can manufacture a money order and an order blank, all they had
to do would be to get the rifle into play and monitor it. Just give
it a fire, and keep the bullet.
> 3. How would the person(s) planting the bullet know how many bullets
> would be recovered in surgery and in the limousine, and thus whether
> CE399 would be one bullet too many?
The idea of having a bullet tagged to a specific weapon trumped
anything. Or IOW, what if the bullet(s) couldn't be tagged to a MC?
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Then why believe any evidence at all, if you think the conspirators can
fake everything?
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>>>> "Unheard of? You obviously have never done any shooting. It happens all the time. Law enforcement fires bullets into cotton wadding or water to produce test bullets to compare. No damage." <<<
>
>
> That's not the same thing at all. The question asked by "Thaliac"
> doesn't equate to the police firing only into a water tank or cotton
> to obtain a test bullet...because OBVIOUSLY the cops would not want to
> disfigure the bullet or eliminate its "grooves" when test-firing it;
> hence, they won't fire it into human bones.
>
I already pointed out that she knows nothing about firearms.
> (Time for a "Duh" here, I think.)
>
> But I've proven that "Thaliac's" thinking is 100% wrong too, via the
> photos of the Discovery Channel test bullet, which is a 6.5/FMJ/MC/WCC
> bullet that DID break three bones in a mock-up of John Connally's body
> in 2004, with that missile emerging with its grooves perfectly
> "readable" and "intact".
>
We don't need that example. We have tons of examples from hunting big
game.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 16, 9:37 pm, HPW...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a
>>> different fashion from each other?
>> Simple. It was a plant used to frame Oswald.
>
> If it was a "plant" --
>
> 1. Why would someone plant a bullet in the condition that CE399 was,
> inviting decades of skepticism?
>
Because they could rely on certain people to spread disinformation about
it.
> 2. How did the person(s) get the barrel markings of Oswald's rifle on
> the bullet?
>
By firing it into a water trap.
> 3. How would the person(s) planting the bullet know how many bullets
> would be recovered in surgery and in the limousine, and thus whether
> CE399 would be one bullet too many?
>
Because one shot was an intentional miss that struck nothing in Dealey
Plaza.
Anthony Marsh
What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. The bullet almost always
keeps its groves no matter what it has done. Look at the Walker bullet.
> You claim that you can fire a bullet into water and cotton and the bullet
> will still have it's grooves. I agree it seems possible in that case. You
> are comparing apples to oranges.
>
It is not a matter of possible. It is fact. It is done every day. That
is what law enforcement does to compare bullets fired from a suspect
weapon to crime scene bullets.
Bullets retain their grooves even after being smashed. Look at the base
fragment jacket recovered from the front compartment of the limo.
yeuhd
> > > Simple. It was a plant used to frame Oswald.
>
> > If it was a "plant" --
>
> > 1. Why would someone plant a bullet in the condition that CE399 was,
> > inviting decades of skepticism?
>
> > 2. How did the person(s) get the barrel markings of Oswald's rifle on
> > the bullet?
>
> > 3. How would the person(s) planting the bullet know how many bullets
> > would be recovered in surgery and in the limousine, and thus whether
> > CE399 would be one bullet too many?
>
> Answers:
> 1. They knew that, as long as the bullet had been proven to be fired
> by Oswald's rifle, the authorities would not question the condition of
> the bullet too much
HOW would they know that? WHY would they think that? Why instead did the
conspirators not perform the simple task of firing the bullet into
something that would have damaged it more, such as into an animal carcass
or into the ground? The Warren Commission and the HSCA *did* question the
condition of CE399, and the WC *did* perform ballistics tests using
gelatin and animal carcasses to see both if the wounds and the condition
of the bullet could be replicated.
And the condition of CE399 *has* been an issue for 45 years now. This is a
conspiracy both marvelously potent and thorough (able to coerce scores of
people in the Dallas police, the Secret Service, the FBI, the White House,
Bethesda Naval Hospital, etc. to march in coordination to their inexorable
command) and at the same time careless and badly thought out.
> 2. Oswald was a well set-up patsy. The conspirators would have had
> access to Oswald's gun, or would have taken it out of his garage while
> he was at work. One of teh conspirators could have gone shooting with
> Oswald and taken a used bullet. This is not known, but there are
> multiple ways Oswald's rifle could have been procured.
Given that the location of the president's luncheon speech, and his
motorcade motorcade route, were not even finalized until mid-November, the
conspirators would have to do all this within days of the president's
arrival.
But more importantly, if you are proposing that Oswald was an unknowing
"pasty", the conspirators would have to assure that no one was with Oswald
when the shots were fired. As Vincent Bugliosi writes of the idea of
Oswald as an unknowing patsy:
The immense problem with this speculative theory is that is would
necessarily mean that the conspirators (CIA, mob, etc.) made a decision to
place the entire fate and success of their killing the president of the
United States and getting away with it *completely* on the shoulders of
the *completely* unreliable Lee Harvey Oswald -- that they trusted him
implicitly to do exactly what they told him to do, without the slightest
deviation. Because if Oswald (who we know disliked taking orders from
anyone) did not follow their orders exactly, *at the precise moment in
time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza* by the real killer, some employee of
the Book Depository Building might have seen Oswald at a place such as the
lunchroom on the second floor, or walking down the stairs between the
second and third floors, and so on. If so, this witness's sighting of
Oswald at the moment of the shooting, and without a rifle in his hands,
would automatically eliminate Oswald as Kennedy's killer. And with his
exoneration, the whole patsy operation would be dead and the police would
be in hot pursuit of his conspirators, not Oswald.
Indeed, even if Oswald did do exactly what he was instructed to do by his
"handlers," the conspirators would still have no assurance that one or
more people would not see him at the exact moment of the shooting, again
exonerating him of Kennedy's murder and thereby killing the whole patsy
plan.
Likewise, how could the conspirators possibly know that some employee or
employees of the Book Depository Building wouldn't see the *actual* killer
of Kennedy at the sixth-floor window? I mean, we know that three Book
Depository Building employees watched the motorcade pass by from the
fifth-floor windows. What if they had watched it from the sixth floor?
They would have seen the true killer, and again, Oswald wouldn't be a
patsy and the conspirators would be on the run from the authorities.
> the people were expected to believe
> a lot of "unlikely" things such as one bullet causing all the
> injuries, coming out the other end in pristine condition,
Once again, CE399 is not in "pristine" condition. It is flattened
laterally, twisted, the lead is extruding from the base, and several
grains of metal are missing.
> and then
> seeing Kennedy on The Z film in the 1970's, with his head jerking
> backwards despite being allegedly shot from behind.
A bullet weighing one-third of an ounce does not cause a head to move
eight and half inches back. It simply does not have the combination of
mass and velocity to move an object fixed on a base, such as a head, any
more than a couple of inches in any direction, despite what you may have
seen in the movies. Especially not when the bullet penetrates into the
object, thereby losing momentum. There could be several explanations for
JFK's head and body movements, most likely a neuromuscular reaction, but
being directly pushed that far by a bullet is not one of them.
yeuhd
> Oh, like they would know in advance. The conspiratists bumbled, and
> bumbled all the time. They just denied, stonewalled, or covered-up.
> Just like the library card found on Oswald...the ol' hot potato
> routine.
What library card found on Oswald? Certainly not David Ferrie's, if
that's where you're going. Oswald's own card from the New Orleans
Public Library was found among his possessions. See CE2650:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0479b.htm
yeuhd
> > inviting decades of skepticism?
> 1. They knew that, as long as the bullet had been proven to be fired
> by Oswald's rifle, the authorities would not question the condition of
> the bullet too much
On May 17, 1:49 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. Why would someone plant a bullet in the condition that CE399 was,
> > inviting decades of skepticism?
>
> Oh, like they would know in advance. The conspiratists bumbled, and
> bumbled all the time.
thaliac, meet curtjester!
Those crafty conspirators *knew* in advance how the authorities would
react! No wait, those bumbling conspirators *didn't* know in advance on
how the authorities would react!
Jas
covered-up. Just like the library card found on Oswald...the ol' hot
potato routine."
...in response to yeuhd asking: "1. Why would someone plant a bullet in
the condition that CE399 was, inviting decades of skepticism?"
To answer this, we need to use what the conspiracists' lack in their
arguments -- common sense.
The "not totally smashed" or "not majorly damaged" condition of the CE399
bullet would not be used for a plant. Why would sinister conspirators want
to shout from the mountaintops and take the risk of revealing their own
conspiracy? as in: "Hey, look at us! We're planting a slightly damaged
bullet just so the assassination will look like a conspiracy."
Please...
The fact that CE399 came out the way it did is more indicative of *no*
conspiracy, given the path it took through Kennedy and Connally, because
it's less likely to have ended up in the condition it did **in the minds
of the general public and lay people who are not well-educated in the
knowledge of ballistics and the randomness of how bullets behave, and the
infinite number of ways a bullet can be damaged after they are fired
through targets.**
In other words, the alleged conspirators would have, more than likely,
planted a fired bullet that looked more like what most people generally
think a bullet would look like, rather than a bullet that would bring up
much more controversy, therefore drawing much unwanted attention, thus
uncovering their conspiratorial acts.
Now, before the conspiracists (who actually took the time to read my
response) rush to say, "a-ha, so you're admitting the CE399 bullet came
out in a manner not consistent with the path it took through Kennedy and
Connally, therefore you're admitting it was planted? No, so sorry, I'm
not.
Those that think that, trying reading this post again because you're
missing the point.
James
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eada29f-2a10-4779...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
> > 3. How would the person(s) planting the bullet know how many bullets
> > would be recovered in surgery and in the limousine, and thus whether
> > CE399 would be one bullet too many?
>
> Because one shot was an intentional miss that struck nothing in Dealey
> Plaza.
According to whom? Did someone confess this to you?
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not a matter of believing...it's a matter of asking the hard
questions to make up a 'belief'.
CJ
curtjester1
On May 17, 9:52 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:
> curtjester1 said: "Oh, like they would know in advance. The conspiratists
> bumbled, and bumbled all the time. They just denied, stonewalled, or
> covered-up. Just like the library card found on Oswald...the ol' hot
> potato routine."
>
> ...in response to yeuhd asking: "1. Why would someone plant a bullet in
> the condition that CE399 was, inviting decades of skepticism?"
>
> To answer this, we need to use what the conspiracists' lack in their
> arguments -- common sense.
>
sense, I don't think your going to succeed. I mean anyone with common
sense would ask why they would allow a suspect to be brought in front
of TV cameras to be killed and call it 'protection' not be
suspicious? And if they knew stuff like 'the investigators' were
cleaning suits, and cleaning limos and refurbishing it, they might be
a little suspcicious of hanky panky. Of course that was hidden from
the American Public until people beame p-oed and asked questions. It
was common sense for them to get the bullet fired from the gun and
tied to the weapon. Of course the average person isn't going to
believe it went through two men (they probably didn't think of that)
and do all the damage it did, and come out so nice lookin'. But hey,
when conspirators are powerful to begin with, all you need is in-
between doubt that you can get some kind of mixed and muddled
responses. They would use that time and again throughout.
> The "not totally smashed" or "not majorly damaged" condition of the CE399
> bullet would not be used for a plant. Why would sinister conspirators want
> to shout from the mountaintops and take the risk of revealing their own
> conspiracy? as in: "Hey, look at us! We're planting a slightly damaged
> bullet just so the assassination will look like a conspiracy."
>
> Please...
>
The same reason they would fire from the back first and see the damage
before they used a last resort of firing from the front. They just
wanted the guy dead, and they would take care of the dirty tricks
along the way. The Mafia, CIA, and Presidents have opeated that way
for years.
> The fact that CE399 came out the way it did is more indicative of *no*
> conspiracy, given the path it took through Kennedy and Connally, because
> it's less likely to have ended up in the condition it did **in the minds
> of the general public and lay people who are not well-educated in the
> knowledge of ballistics and the randomness of how bullets behave, and the
> infinite number of ways a bullet can be damaged after they are fired
> through targets.**
>
Heck, they don't care in the SBT or two-bullet theory. They'll have
an answer. They only went to the SBT after the pressure about the
Tague shot much later.
> In other words, the alleged conspirators would have, more than likely,
> planted a fired bullet that looked more like what most people generally
> think a bullet would look like, rather than a bullet that would bring up
> much more controversy, therefore drawing much unwanted attention, thus
> uncovering their conspiratorial acts.
>
I am sure they wouldn't even give it much thought. They could have
even done it at the last second just before Parkland or they could
have done it before the assassination. That's what makes the
conspiracy so positive, is because there was so much evidence that
wouldn't make sense in normal police procedures...that were just
passed by time and again.
> Now, before the conspiracists (who actually took the time to read my
> response) rush to say, "a-ha, so you're admitting the CE399 bullet came
> out in a manner not consistent with the path it took through Kennedy and
> Connally, therefore you're admitting it was planted? No, so sorry, I'm
> not.
>
It probably was planted and substiuted after the find. None of the
people at the hospital agreed that the bullet they found was the shape
of the bullet they used in evidence.
> Those that think that, trying reading this post again because you're
> missing the point.
>
I think the point is, there was too many people that saw too many
bullets. One found in the grass. One hitting the curb on the
opposite side of the street. A video clearly showing JFK grabbing for
his throat way before JBC is hit, people reacting to a bullet in the
limo flying over before JFK is hit in the head, and a Tague shot that
is not in line from the TSBD. You have too much in grains extracted
from JBC with grains that were even deemed inoperable left in the
body, much less grains that would have been lost from the barrell and
what would have been left inside JFK. A lot of people didn't care for
JFK, lot's. The one-man theory is just as dead as it ever has been.
CJ
curtjester1
It certainly *had* to be a David Ferrie library card. Wray Gill, who
Ferrie worked for and was Carlos Marcello's attorney caught wind of it
before anyone would have a right to know. If it was just Oswald's
card, then it wouldn't have been newsworthy to them. It also came up
in Marina's interrogation on Sunday when they the Secret Service asked
if she knew a David Farry? And then there was the teletype from the
FBI office pertaining to Gill's visit to the Ferrie apartment on the
24th which stated, "Martens said the Atty. Wray Gill visited Ferrie's
residence and told Marten's he was looking for Ferrie who was then not
at home. Gill remarked to Martens that when Lee Harvey Oswald was
arrested, by the Dallas Police, Oswald was carrying a library card
with Ferrie's name on it. Gill instructed Martens to tell Ferrie to
contact him and Gill would represent Ferrie as his attorney.
Of course then there is the 'cabal' of Martin, Martens, Ferrie,
Oswald, Shaw, and Ruby that have more than a few meetings which one or
more is present. And if you want, I can produce an Oswald New Orleans
book being taken back to the library while 'Oswald' was working at the
TSBD if you want?
Added to all this, is Ferrie's behavior when he did get back to New
Orleans from..his N.O to Houston to Galveston to Hammonds, back to
N.O. trip. He went to Oswald's last address and asked her if she had
come across a library card Oswald had used when he had lived there,
and duplicated the act with the next door neighbor lady. Why would he
be so paranoid over a library card that couldn't possibly have
implicated him?
CJ
yeuhd
> It certainly *had* to be a David Ferrie library card. Wray Gill, who
> Ferrie worked for and was Carlos Marcello's attorney caught wind of it
> before anyone would have a right to know.
Jack Martin claimed to authorities in New Orleans that Oswald had
Ferrie’s library card in his possession at the time of his arrest, and
had used the card to obtain books from the New Orleans Public Library.
No such library card of Ferrie’s was found in Oswald’s possession at
the time of his arrest or at any other time.
curtjester1
> In other words, the alleged conspirators would have, more than likely,
> planted a fired bullet that looked more like what most people generally
> think a bullet would look like, rather than a bullet that would bring up
> much more controversy, therefore drawing much unwanted attention, thus
> uncovering their conspiratorial acts.
>
> Now, before the conspiracists (who actually took the time to read my
> response) rush to say, "a-ha, so you're admitting the CE399 bullet came
> out in a manner not consistent with the path it took through Kennedy and
> Connally, therefore you're admitting it was planted? No, so sorry, I'm
> not.
>
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
CJ
yeuhd
> Orleans from..his N.O to Houston to Galveston to Hammonds, back to
> N.O. trip. He went to Oswald's last address and asked her if she had
> come across a library card Oswald had used when he had lived there,
> and duplicated the act with the next door neighbor lady. Why would he
> be so paranoid over a library card that couldn't possibly have
> implicated him?
Jack Martin, who had a history of making wild accusations, and who was
Ferrie's nemesis, was on a one-man campaign the weekend of the
assassination to exploit the fact that Oswald was once in Ferrie's
Civil Air Patrol group by suggesting that Ferrie was somehow involved
in the assassination. One of the stories Martin told Ferrie's
employer, G. Wray Gill, was that he heard on television that Ferrie's
library card had been found among Oswald's belongings. In fact, no
such library card was found, and no such report was made on
television.
But in any case, if someone claimed to you that it was reported on
television that *your* library card was found in the possession of the
suspected assassin of the President, wouldn't *you* be upset, to put
it mildly, even if you knew the rumor to be false? And wouldn't you
try to find out who or what was behind the origin of such a rumor?
Since reporters swarmed on November 22 to the house of Oswald's former
landlady in New Orleans, Martin may have claimed that that location
was where Ferrie's library card was found. Or Ferrie may have just
suspected that Oswald's former landlady was the origin of the false
rumor after seeing her interviewed on television or in the newspapers.
Or, given that it was reported on November 22 that Oswald was carrying
what appeared to be false identification when he was arrested, Ferrie
may have suspected that Oswald for some reason forged a library card
curtjester1
That's ridiculous. How would Martin even know what was on Oswald at
all after the arrest?
CJ
yeuhd
> > Jack Martin claimed to authorities in New Orleans that Oswald had
> > Ferrie’s library card in his possession at the time of his arrest, and
> > had used the card to obtain books from the New Orleans Public Library.
> > No such library card of Ferrie’s was found in Oswald’s possession at
> > the time of his arrest or at any other time.
>
> That's ridiculous. How would Martin even know what was on Oswald at
> all after the arrest?
>
> CJ
He didn't. That's the point. Jack Martin made up the rumor that heard
on TV that Ferrie's library card was found among Oswald possessions.
(Not necessarily "on Oswald", BTW.)
thali...@hotmail.com
How did he know so soon that Oswald was in Ferrie's Air Patrol Unit?
Oswald was some unknown loner that no-one remembered meeting
(apparently) Please explain.
curtjester1
That's some 'rumor'. I find it difficult to believe that he would be
in the rumor mill since he was pistol-whipped by his boss, Guy
Banister, the afternoon of the assassination. He even went to the
extent of not pressing charges, after it had been described that he
would have been killed if Banister's secretary didn't step in and put
a halt to it. Of course I find it quite implausible that Ferrie on
the same evening would be catching up on 'this rumor.' I doubt
seriously that Martin even would be out of the hospital yet. Yet, he
has this great intuition to find Oswald's place, (a guy who he is
getting to testify that he doesn't know), and hunt down the 'rumor'
that's going on about his library card being found in Oswald's
possession. And if Mr. Martin made this up, since it wouldn't have
been on TV...why would he make up such a wacky story like that? He
wasn't quite in the wacky story mood when he accused Banister of him
and his people of killing JFK.
CJ
curtjester1
Of course you assume that there was only one wallet found of Oswald's
when we have two found that day, one on a TV footage near the Tippit
murder scene, and one wallet found on the way to DPD from the Texas
Theater in the patrol car. It is also true that the library card that
Ferrie had of his card was out of date and had an address that was not
near his present address. It's not uncommon to have friends loan
another friend a library card.
CJ
curtjester1
> On May 18, 12:04 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Added to all this, is Ferrie's behavior when he did get back to New
> > Orleans from..his N.O to Houston to Galveston to Hammonds, back to
> > N.O. trip. He went to Oswald's last address and asked her if she had
> > come across a library card Oswald had used when he had lived there,
> > and duplicated the act with the next door neighbor lady. Why would he
> > be so paranoid over a library card that couldn't possibly have
> > implicated him?
>
> Jack Martin, who had a history of making wild accusations, and who was
> Ferrie's nemesis, was on a one-man campaign the weekend of the
> assassination to exploit the fact that Oswald was once in Ferrie's
> Civil Air Patrol group by suggesting that Ferrie was somehow involved
> in the assassination. One of the stories Martin told Ferrie's
> employer, G. Wray Gill, was that he heard on television that Ferrie's
> library card had been found among Oswald's belongings. In fact, no
> such library card was found, and no such report was made on
> television.
>
the day of the assassination. Banister was his boss, so to implicate
his boss in the assassination was no small potatoes. Martin probably
hinted at that when they were drinking, as he knew Oswald from the
office there. Banister was on to him for putting two and two together
and baited him into an argument by making an issue over long distance
phone calls Martin was making from the office. Martin was a private
detective, and one would think that's exactly what they would do.
> But in any case, if someone claimed to you that it was reported on
> television that *your* library card was found in the possession of the
> suspected assassin of the President, wouldn't *you* be upset, to put
> it mildly, even if you knew the rumor to be false? And wouldn't you
> try to find out who or what was behind the origin of such a rumor?
>
Oh, I might be upset especially if it were true. But why would he go
to a residence to solve his dilemma? IOW, why would if true a library
card be there, when the guy was in custody in another town in another
state? How would he know where the house was? Then, why after
finding this out would he leave town? A good answer might be, because
he knew he was in trouble, and would spend time on pay phones find out
what to do since he was on the hot seat, and would be monitored if he
did anything local? Why would he end up in a Marcello hotel in
Houston? Do you find anything that he did plausible, like his story
about going goose hunting?
> Since reporters swarmed on November 22 to the house of Oswald's former
> landlady in New Orleans, Martin may have claimed that that location
> was where Ferrie's library card was found. Or Ferrie may have just
> suspected that Oswald's former landlady was the origin of the false
> rumor after seeing her interviewed on television or in the newspapers.
> Or, given that it was reported on November 22 that Oswald was carrying
> what appeared to be false identification when he was arrested, Ferrie
> may have suspected that Oswald for some reason forged a library card
> with Ferrie's name on it.
Oh, now it's the landlady who is making up stories. She must have
made up the story that Ferrie came by her house on the day of the
assassination before the reporters came too?! Are you sure you have
the right landlady? ... and aren't referring to Earlene Roberts? I
think Ferrie did what he had to do, and act interested because he was
right in the middle of him knowing Oswald and other people in New
Orleans that he knew that had dealings with Oswald. And also, I find
it a wee bit out of kilter that Mr. Wray Gill, Marcello's atty, and
who Ferrie worked for would call when asked where he heard about the
source of the card, that he would just label it an unknown rumor.
Only when he was pressed did he offer Jack Martin. By then I am sure
that cabal had known what had happened between Martin and Banister,
and what one of Marcello's underbosses in Dallas had communicated down
there about the police finding the Ferrie library card. This goes
quite well IMO when Gill just had to lie concerning the phone records
for his office for November that 'were gone', while September's and
October's were somehow intact. And of course too, Martin was so
frightened of Banister that he went to the NODA and told of Banister,
Oswald, and Ferrie after he got out of the hospital to try to get
himself out from underneath him and what was inevitable, the finger
pointing at him for knowing all of them too. And it would make sense,
to why he had to recant that in a few days because of I am sure the
threats he would receive from the cabal in N.O.
CJ
yeuhd
> How did he know so soon that Oswald was in Ferrie's Air Patrol Unit?
> Oswald was some unknown loner that no-one remembered meeting
> (apparently) Please explain.
Don't know where you get this "unknown loner that no-one remembered
meeting". HSCA investigators circa 1978 found a number of Civil Air
Patrol members who remembered Oswald; doubtlessly memories were even
better in 1963. That Oswald had a member of the Civil Air Patrol in
New Orleans was reported in that city within hours of his arrest on
November 22, along with every other scrap of information about
Oswald's life in New Orleans that could be dug up by reporters. The
New Orleans newspapers reported his CAP membership on the morning of
November 23, meaning it was known to the NO media by the afternoon/
evening of November 22 and on local radio and television.
Jack Martin told the FBI (FBI Record 124-10053-10253, interview on
November 25, 1963, pp. 1-2) that when he was watching TV in New
Orleans after the assassination, one of the local people being
interviewed about Oswald said he believed Oswald had been in the Civil
Air Patrol with David Ferrie. When Martin heard this, he said he
“flipped” and started putting two and two together. Ferrie and Martin
used to be friends before they became enemies, and Martin recalled
that Ferrie had once told him he taught the CAP cadets how to shoot
weapons.
(The Mary Ferrell site has this document, but the server appears to be
down at the moment, so I can't post the link here.)
yeuhd
> And if Mr. Martin made this up, since it wouldn't have
> been on TV...why would he make up such a wacky story like that?
Jack Martin had a history of making wild accusations. Among his other
suggestions to authorities was that since Ferrie liked to practice
hypnotism, he may have hypnotized Oswald into assassinating the
President, and that because Ferrie flew airplanes, he may have been
the pilot of a getaway airplane waiting for the assassin, and because
he heard that Ferrie trained CAP members in arms, Ferrie may have
instructed Oswald in how to use his rifle.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
He might have known from Ed Voebel's TV questioning of reporters,
whoever He is your speaking of. Ed Voebel knew Oswald way before they
went into CAP together. It was Ed who took Oswald to his first
meeting via the urging of fellow classmate Fred O'Sullivan (CAP since
1953). So it's not like some would like to think that LHO was a
Commie already infiltrating a right-wing camp. Ed Voebel was one they
had to keep an eye on for he knew both Oswald's, Harvey and Lee. At
the time he met Lee, the one he went to CAP with, Harvey (the one
arrested for the murder of JFK who worked at the TSBD, was at
Stripling Junior High, and Ed and Lee were at Beauregard JHS. Of
course Voegel would offer more than they wanted to hear, like going to
parties with Ferrie...so he became problematic for the conspirators.
All of this died down after a bit, and Ferrie's hundred type written
pages were lost to the public while interrogated...and didn't come
back up til 1967ish with Garrison getting more stuff. By then
Banister was dead and Ferrie was soon to follow, and Voebel in 1971
under mysterious circumstances. Voebel stated that there was no hint
of literature or any Communist talk in all the time he knew Oswald.
O'Sullivan knew the same and was in the homeroom picture with the
tooth knocked, and attested how big and fearsome he was when it came
to standing up to people and fighting. Far cry from the docile
Harvey who worked at the TSBD.
CJ
yeuhd
> when we have two found that day, one on a TV footage near the Tippit
> murder scene, and one wallet found on the way to DPD from the Texas
> Theater in the patrol car.
No, I do not assume that. The "two wallets" have been in the
literature for several years now. Both Myers and Bugliosi spend
several pages discussing the wallet found at the Tippit murder scene.
Whether the wallet was Oswald's or Tippit's has never been resolved --
evidence goes in both directions.
> It's not uncommon to have friends loan
> another friend a library card.
Oswald had his own New Orleans library card, issued in 1963, that was
good until 1966. He used it frequently.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_04
yeuhd
The media swarmed to Oswald's former landlady on November 22, as she
herself testified. Her name and address were reported on radio and
television.
> Oh, now it's the landlady who is making up stories.
No, I am not claiming that Oswald's former landlady made up the rumor.
I am saying that Ferrie may have *suspected* that she did, among
several possibilities.
In investigating the source of this rumor (which turned out to be
nonexistent; it was Jack Martin's attempt to smear Ferrie's reputation
with Ferrie's employer, G. Wray Gill), Ferrie would have gotten
nowhere by calling the local television stations, since no such rumor
had been reported about Ferrie's library card being found in Oswald's
possessions. Likewise, had Ferrie called the police, they would have
known nothing about that rumor either.
Depending on the wording of Martin's rumor, Martin may have claimed
that Ferrie's library card had been found among belongings that Oswald
had left behind at his former landlady's in New Orleans. Or Martin's
rumor may have been vague about locale, and Ferrie may have just
assumed that is where a possibly forged library card had been found.
Or Ferrie may have suspected that Oswald's former landlady invented
the story.
Tracing down vague and slippery rumors is nothing new to journalists,
and Ferrie got a taste of that when he tried to investigate the source
of the rumor himself.
> Are you sure you have
> the right landlady? ... and aren't referring to Earlene Roberts?
No, not Earlene Roberts. (By the way, Roberts was his housekeeper in
the Beckley St. rooming house Dallas; Mrs. A. C. Johnson was the
landlady at Beckley.)
curtjester1
None of your Martin scenarios are that wack because there are other
corroborations for Oswald at the camp and at Banister's office in
front of other people. I think Ferrie was known to have practiced
hypnotism, and he even admitted to at least one other that he was
waiting in Houston for one or two of the assassination team. I think
Broshears said that. And if I am not mistaken, Braden showed up in
Houston (the one caught in the Dal-Tex Bldg). But to think of a
library card, is not normal for pinning anything on anybody, (unless
one knows about those particular's in advance). So what is it, Martin
thought it up, Martin saw it on TV, Martin heard it from Banister, or
it wasn't heard at all, and it was just coming down the pike from
Dallas, and they had to say it was from Martin for their alibi(s)?
And I noticed you didn't respond to anything else.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
CJ"
Go get him CJ, don't forget about the wallet found on a dresser at the
Paine's either. That makes supposedly three wallets, and the guy had
no money.
curtjester1
> On May 19, 9:20 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course you assume that there was only one wallet found of Oswald's
> > when we have two found that day, one on a TV footage near the Tippit
> > murder scene, and one wallet found on the way to DPD from the Texas
> > Theater in the patrol car.
>
> No, I do not assume that. The "two wallets" have been in the
> literature for several years now. Both Myers and Bugliosi spend
> several pages discussing the wallet found at the Tippit murder scene.
> Whether the wallet was Oswald's or Tippit's has never been resolved --
> evidence goes in both directions.
>
have had his wallet come out as he fell. The scene of the wallet TV
coverage was not right on Tenth St. but further away on Jefferson. So
that pig's not going to fly. They were reading the contents of inside
the wallet and had come up with Oswald and Hidell, and there was no
other way they could have got Oswald's name out in the Texas Theater
except by vehicle. And they did that, by going to the theater just at
the time of his arrest. I hate to say this, but this is so typical of
people trying to pin the guilt on man. They have to think of the
macabre to put a hedge in for their 'case.'
CJ
curtjester1
this 'rumor'? And yet the press would have to have received this
rumor even earlier. All on Nov. 22, 1963, when Martin has gone to a
hospital after being beaten.
> In investigating the source of this rumor (which turned out to be
> nonexistent; it was Jack Martin's attempt to smear Ferrie's reputation
> with Ferrie's employer, G. Wray Gill), Ferrie would have gotten
> nowhere by calling the local television stations, since no such rumor
> had been reported about Ferrie's library card being found in Oswald's
> possessions. Likewise, had Ferrie called the police, they would have
> known nothing about that rumor either.
>
Again, your broadly scenarioizing instead of making small leaps.
> Depending on the wording of Martin's rumor, Martin may have claimed
> that Ferrie's library card had been found among belongings that Oswald
> had left behind at his former landlady's in New Orleans. Or Martin's
> rumor may have been vague about locale, and Ferrie may have just
> assumed that is where a possibly forged library card had been found.
> Or Ferrie may have suspected that Oswald's former landlady invented
> the story.
>
Again, making up a rumor about a library card doesn't make sense.
It's too weird and obscure unless there is something that Martin would
actually know from Ferrie's or Oswald's recent past.
> Tracing down vague and slippery rumors is nothing new to journalists,
> and Ferrie got a taste of that when he tried to investigate the source
> of the rumor himself.
>
Good ol' boy, Dave. Good nose. Cheerleading?
> > Are you sure you have
> > the right landlady? ... and aren't referring to Earlene Roberts?
>
> No, not Earlene Roberts. (By the way, Roberts was his housekeeper in
> the Beckley St. rooming house Dallas; Mrs. A. C. Johnson was the
> landlady at Beckley.)- Hide quoted text -
>
When did the reporters get to Mrs. Garner's house, and when did a Mr.
Jack Martin leave the hospital?
CJ
yeuhd
> So what is it, Martin
> thought it up, Martin saw it on TV, Martin heard it from Banister, or
> it wasn't heard at all, and it was just coming down the pike from
> Dallas, and they had to say it was from Martin for their alibi(s)?
Jack Martin, and everyone else watching TV in New Orleans on November
22, heard plenty about Oswald. Among other things, Martin heard that
Oswald had been in the Civil Air Patrol, as I said above. What Martin
did NOT hear on TV was anything about David Ferrie's library card
being found among Oswald's possessions.
Here's the whole story laid out in black and white:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lib-card.txt
And I said nothing above about Guy Bannister. You did.
And no, I don't address nonsense about two Oswalds, Lee and Harvey.
That's your bag.
curtjester1
wrote:
The Five Wallets:
1) Capt. Westbrook took possession of the wallet found at the Tippit
murder scene, which contained the identification for Lee Oswald and Alek.
J. Hidell, and showed it to FBI Agent Robert Barrett. This wallet was
last known to be in Westbrook's custody but soon disappeared. (It could
be presumed that a driver's license was sent from this to the Motor Vehice
which arrived less than a week after the assassination; and could very
well be the source of the Ferrie library card, which like the drivers
license was to be soon deemed problematic).
2) After arriving at DPD headquarters Officer C.T. Walker removed a brown
wallet from arrestee Oswald's rear pocket and examined the contents. FBI
Agent Manning Clements examined the wallet during the evening of Nov. 22
and listed the contents in his report. The wallet and contents were
turned over to J.B. Hicks of the DPD Indentification Bureau at 5:30 P.M.
on November 23. Four days later, on November 27, Captain Fritz turned
over the wallet and contents to FBI agent James Hosty.
3-4) On November 26 Ruth Paine voluntarily turned over to the Dallas
Police a red wallet billfold (FBI Ex. #382 and a brown wallet (FBI Ex.
#114) which she said belonged to Oswald.
5) On November 27 Marina gave a black, plastic wallet, with the
inscription Waggoner National Bank, Vernon, Texas, that contained $180.00
in cash to the S.S. This wallet was probably bought by the fat Marguerite
who lived in Vernon at the time Oswald was still in Russia.
Tippit's Wallet: Shortly after 2:00 P.M. Sergeant Calvin (Bud) Owens left
10th and Patton and drove to Methodist Hospital where he was met by DPD
Officers R.A. Davenport and W.R. Bardin. The officers inspected Tippit's
body and then waited while medical attendants removed Tippit's clothing.
Tippit's possessions- a black billfold, a black Sam Browne (police belt),
police badge #848, two pocket combs, a Rytime wrist watch, two fountain
pens, one dime, a chrome whistle, a pair of handcuffs, and Tippit's name
plate-were placed in a large paper envelope and given to Officer Bardin.
Bardin took the items, plus Tippit's service revolver given to him by
Sergeant Owens, to DPD headquarters where they were received by the
Identification Bureau at 3:25 P.M.
CJ
yeuhd
> > No, I am not claiming that Oswald's former landlady made up the rumor.
> > I am saying that Ferrie may have *suspected* that she did, among
> > several possibilities.
>
> But you have Martin the originator and the landlady the recipient of
> this 'rumor'? And yet the press would have to have received this
> rumor even earlier. All on Nov. 22, 1963, when Martin has gone to a
> hospital after being beaten.
No, no, no. For the nth time -- THE RUMOR WAS NOT IN THE PRESS, NOR ON
TELEVISION. Jack Martin only CLAIMED he heard such a rumor on TV. Here is
the genealogy of the rumor:
Jack Martin --> Hardy Davis (a bail bondsman who knew Martin and Gill) -->
G. Wray Gill (Ferrie's lawyer and employer) --> Layton Martens (Ferrie's
house guest) --> David Ferrie.
Gill told Martens on Sunday, November 24, and Martens told Ferrie that
same day, when Ferrie called home for any messages. As the link I provided
says,
"After Ferrie's 1967 death, Oswald's landlady and a former neighbor told
Jim Garrison's investigators that Ferrie had visited them and inquired
about a library card. (The landlady said Ferrie's visit was on the night
of the assassination, but his whereabouts during that evening are
accounted for.) Presumably, Ferrie did visit the women a few days later in
response to the allegation made by Jack Martin."
curtjester1
> On May 19, 3:35 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So what is it, Martin
> > thought it up, Martin saw it on TV, Martin heard it from Banister, or
> > it wasn't heard at all, and it was just coming down the pike from
> > Dallas, and they had to say it was from Martin for their alibi(s)?
>
> Jack Martin, and everyone else watching TV in New Orleans on November
> 22, heard plenty about Oswald. Among other things, Martin heard that
> Oswald had been in the Civil Air Patrol, as I said above. What Martin
> did NOT hear on TV was anything about David Ferrie's library card
> being found among Oswald's possessions.
>
All you have is an assumption that he watched TV. You give no background
to Davis and why he was in on this juicy item either. So, they either
heard, or one of them heard an actual TV report saying that, OR they or
one of them had to make it up, OR they heard it by some other means and
then got a story together. Even if one or both was watching a TV program
about Oswald's background in New Orleans, there would be NO reason to
make-up, embellish, or have anything to do with a library card...UNLESS
they had some past experience with it. And why would Martin or anybody in
that crowd want to draw attention to anything like that, when they would
know what a rough FBI/CIA/MAFIA crowd that they were used to being around?
And that, especially after Martin was brutally beaten after the
assassination, and admitted to Charity Hospital. And exactly how do you
know again that Martin *was* watching TV?...made up a 'rumor', and how did
'that' to get reporters to Mrs. Garner's house all in apple pie order?
(Martin didn't call the D.A's office until November 23).
CJ
tomnln
James Hosty states in his book that it WAS Oswald's wallet at the Tippit
murder scene.
Is it your understanding that Hosty was a Liar???
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:edebbadf-d57d-4d66...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
Great point!
yeuhd
> Jack Martin leave the hospital?
Jack Martin and Guy Banister met at a bar at 5:00 pm on Friday, November
22, had drinks, and then went to Banisters office, where they got into a
fight that ended with Banister pistol whipping Martin. Martin went to
Charity Hospital, received outpatient treatment, went home, and called
Major P.J. Trosclair of the New Orleans Police Department. A squad car was
called to Martin's home at about 8:45 pm, and Martin was taken to Baptist
Hospital, where his injuries were examined and photographed.
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100banmar.html
As to when the new media started coming to Mrs. Garner's door, Garner
testified that it was *before* Ferrie came to her home. See HSCA Record
180-10104-10364, Testimony of Lena Garner before the HSCA on May 5, 1978,
pp.19, 22, 32.
yeuhd
> All you have is an assumption that he watched TV. . . . And exactly how do you
> know again that Martin *was* watching TV?.
From the article that I've linked to twice now (emphasis added):
The FBI then questioned Hardy Davis, who said that he had spoken to Jack
Martin, who "told Davis that (a) TELEVISION PROGRAM had reported that the
library card of David Ferrie had been found in the posession of Oswald in
Dallas, Texas upon the latter's arrest."
This led the FBI to Jack Martin, who told the agents that "he had several
phone conversations with Hardy Davis...regarding a TELEVISION PROGRAM
which mentioned the possibility that David Ferrie was associated with Lee
Harvey Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol, and Martin and Davis may have come
to the conclusion that Oswald had used or carried Ferrie's library card."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lib-card.txt
> And why would Martin or anybody in
> that crowd want to draw attention to anything like that, when they would
> know what a rough FBI/CIA/MAFIA crowd that they were used to being around?
This has what to do with David Ferrie's library card?
> And that, especially after Martin was brutally beaten after the
> assassination, and admitted to Charity Hospital.
Martin was not admitted. He was treated as an out patient, and went
home.
yeuhd
> James Hosty states in his book that it WAS Oswald's wallet at the Tippit
> murder scene.
>
> Is it your understanding that Hosty was a Liar???
Does anyone in your paranoid world ever make an honest error? Hosty was
not at the scene of Tippit's murder and never saw the wallet in question.
He heard the story from FBI agent Robert M. Barrett -- who saw the wallet,
but never examined its contents. In other words, Hosty's account was third
hand.
Dallas WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland, who was there and who filmed the
police officers examining the wallet, said it was Tippit’s wallet.
Nowhere in the testimony or the reports of Dallas police officers
Westbrook, Hill, Doughty, or Poe, is the wallet mentioned.
It remains an unsolved, and endlessly debatable, mystery.
curtjester1
> On May 19, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, I am not claiming that Oswald's former landlady made up the rumor.
> > > I am saying that Ferrie may have *suspected* that she did, among
> > > several possibilities.
>
> > But you have Martin the originator and the landlady the recipient of
> > this 'rumor'? And yet the press would have to have received this
> > rumor even earlier. All on Nov. 22, 1963, when Martin has gone to a
> > hospital after being beaten.
>
> No, no, no. For the nth time -- THE RUMOR WAS NOT IN THE PRESS, NOR ON
> TELEVISION. Jack Martin only CLAIMED he heard such a rumor on TV. Here is
> the genealogy of the rumor:
>
Your not dealing with what I am giving back. That's both sides claimed
and unclaimed. Both don't work.
CJ
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebcb1efe-4f5d-4ce2...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
Ok, let's take it that her testimony is true. There is not much testimony
surrounding that, and the only thing I could find is that Ferrie came real
later after dark, and she was a little leery about the date because of
'all the commotion.' Ferrie would have had to be there late on the night
of 11.22/63 because he was well on his way to Texas.
Now, according to testimony of Hardy Davis, the bail bondsmen, Martin and
he had phone conversations. According to testimony, Martin mentioned he
had seen the report on TV between the first and second phone conversation.
Additional convesation between them indicate that Ferrie was already gone
while they were in discussion. So far you have indicated that Martin's
rumor is the cause for the leak of Ferrie's library card. This cannot be
true, and the source of the rumor being from Martin seems very implausible
since there is no one to be known to have received such a rumor.
Therefore, it is likely that Martin did hear about the library card from
television. If he didn't hear it from television, then there had to be
another one who was getting that rumor started for the reporters to come
to Lena Garner's home. So Martin would have claimed to see this piece
about the library card sometime on the 23rd or 24th. Probably the 23rd
since Martin called the assistant D.A. on that day, and I presume said the
same thing to him. Of course this would be a problem for the local N.O
gang down there, and could have implicated even Marcello, so they had to
find a scapegoat, and Martin was it. So, they threatened him, and when
they finally went to interview him again, he could then 'support' the
threateners, by saying he made the whole thing up. If the library card
scenario didn't actually come from the television to N.O, it most
certainly came from Dallas, which there was enough N.O/
Dallas/Police/Mafia solidarity to get the message through. Civiello and
Campisi were underbosses to Marcello who had businesses in Dallas as well
as his Louisana spread.
CJ
yeuhd
> Doesn't yeuhd Ever give Official Citations???
What are you taking about? In the post you refer to, I gave a link
that contained the New Orleans Police Department's report of Jack
Martin's police call of November 22, 1963, i.e., an "official" source;
and I gave a citation to HSCA Record 180-10104-10364, another
"official" source.
In earlier posts in this thread alone, I cited and/or linked to 3 H
430 (CE 2650), 7 HSCA 149, 7 HSCA 144, and FBI Record 124-10053-10253.
Are you even paying attention?
yeuhd
> > On May 19, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When did the reporters get to Mrs. Garner's house, and when did a Mr.
> > > Jack Martin leave the hospital?
>
> > Jack Martin and Guy Banister met at a bar at 5:00 pm on Friday, November
> > 22, had drinks, and then went to Banisters office, where they got into a
> > fight that ended with Banister pistol whipping Martin. Martin went to
> > Charity Hospital, received outpatient treatment, went home, and called
> > Major P.J. Trosclair of the New Orleans Police Department. A squad car was
> > called to Martin's home at about 8:45 pm, and Martin was taken to Baptist
> > Hospital, where his injuries were examined and photographed.
>
> >http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100banmar.html
>
> > As to when the new media started coming to Mrs. Garner's door, Garner
> > testified that it was *before* Ferrie came to her home. See HSCA Record
> > 180-10104-10364, Testimony of Lena Garner before the HSCA on May 5, 1978,
> > pp.19, 22, 32.
>
> Ok, let's take it that her testimony is true. There is not much testimony
> surrounding that, and the only thing I could find is that Ferrie came real
> later after dark, and she was a little leery about the date because of
> 'all the commotion.' Ferrie would have had to be there late on the night
> of 11.22/63 because he was well on his way to Texas.
Indeed Lena Garner was leery about the date. She wasn't interviewed
until four years later, in 1967. It is unlikely that David Ferrie
visited her on November 22. The HSCA concluded, after investigating
the evidence, "Ferrie may have come to her house on a later date."
Ferrie's whereabouts on November 22 are accounted for (Jim Garrison's
office interviewed him on November 25 and investigated his alibis),
and Ferrie didn't even hear of the library card rumor until his house
guest told him when Ferrie called home on November 24.
>
> Now, according to testimony of Hardy Davis, the bail bondsmen, Martin and
> he had phone conversations. According to testimony, Martin mentioned he
> had seen the report on TV between the first and second phone conversation.
> Additional convesation between them indicate that Ferrie was already gone
> while they were in discussion. So far you have indicated that Martin's
> rumor is the cause for the leak of Ferrie's library card. This cannot be
> true, and the source of the rumor being from Martin seems very implausible
> since there is no one to be known to have received such a rumor.
> Therefore, it is likely that Martin did hear about the library card from
> television. If he didn't hear it from television, then there had to be
> another one who was getting that rumor started for the reporters to come
> to Lena Garner's home.
Where did you get the idea that reporters went to Lena Garner's
residence on November 22 because of some library card rumor? They went
to her home because she had been Lee and Marina Oswald's landlady. To
repeat: NO RUMOR ABOUT DAVID FERRIE'S LIBRARY CARD WAS ON TELEVISION
OR IN THE PRESS THAT WEEKEND. Jack Martin only CLAIMED to Hardy Davis
that he heard such a rumor on television.
Oswald's Magazine Street address was on record at his former employer
the Reily coffee company, the New Orleans Public Library, and the U.S.
Post Office in Dallas (back when Post Office regulations allowed the
information on a change of address form to be given out to anyone who
inquired; this regulation was still in effect as late as the 1980s).*
Oswald's Aunt Lillian Murret knew the address too, since she helped
Oswald find the rental. Ruth Paine knew it because she had picked
Marina up there. The FBI had known of Oswald's residence there since
September 1963.
* On May 12, 1963, Oswald sent a change of address to the Dallas
postmaster and asked for his mail to be forwarded to his Magazine
Street address:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0153a.htm
thali...@hotmail.com
> On May 17, 9:52 pm, "Jas" <jste...@cox.net> wrote:> curtjester1 said: "Oh, like they would know in advance. The conspiratists
> > bumbled, and bumbled all the time. They just denied, stonewalled, or
> > covered-up. Just like the library card found on Oswald...the ol' hot
> > potato routine."
>
> > ...in response to yeuhd asking: "1. Why would someone plant a bullet in
> > the condition that CE399 was, inviting decades of skepticism?"
>
> > To answer this, we need to use what the conspiracists' lack in their
> > arguments -- common sense.
>
> If you are trying to make it a do-or-die ..perfect crime vs. common
> sense, I don't think your going to succeed. I mean anyone with common
> sense would ask why they would allow a suspect to be brought in front
> of TV cameras to be killed and call it 'protection' not be
> suspicious? And if they knew stuff like 'the investigators' were
> cleaning suits, and cleaning limos and refurbishing it, they might be
> a little suspcicious of hanky panky. Of course that was hidden from
> the American Public until people beame p-oed and asked questions. It
> was common sense for them to get the bullet fired from the gun and
> tied to the weapon. Of course the average person isn't going to
> believe it went through two men (they probably didn't think of that)
> and do all the damage it did, and come out so nice lookin'. But hey,
> when conspirators are powerful to begin with, all you need is in-
> between doubt that you can get some kind of mixed and muddled
> responses. They would use that time and again throughout.
>
> > The "not totally smashed" or "not majorly damaged" condition of the CE399
> > bullet would not be used for a plant. Why would sinister conspirators want
> > to shout from the mountaintops and take the risk of revealing their own
> > conspiracy? as in: "Hey, look at us! We're planting a slightly damaged
> > bullet just so the assassination will look like a conspiracy."
>
> > Please...
>
> The same reason they would fire from the back first and see the damage
> before they used a last resort of firing from the front. They just
> wanted the guy dead, and they would take care of the dirty tricks
> along the way. The Mafia, CIA, and Presidents have opeated that way
> for years.
>
> > The fact that CE399 came out the way it did is more indicative of *no*
> > conspiracy, given the path it took through Kennedy and Connally, because
> > it's less likely to have ended up in the condition it did **in the minds
> > of the general public and lay people who are not well-educated in the
> > knowledge of ballistics and the randomness of how bullets behave, and the
> > infinite number of ways a bullet can be damaged after they are fired
> > through targets.**
>
> Heck, they don't care in the SBT or two-bullet theory. They'll have
> an answer. They only went to the SBT after the pressure about the
> Tague shot much later.
>
> > In other words, the alleged conspirators would have, more than likely,
> > planted a fired bullet that looked more like what most people generally
> > think a bullet would look like, rather than a bullet that would bring up
> > much more controversy, therefore drawing much unwanted attention, thus
> > uncovering their conspiratorial acts.
>
> I am sure they wouldn't even give it much thought. They could have
> even done it at the last second just before Parkland or they could
> have done it before the assassination. That's what makes the
> conspiracy so positive, is because there was so much evidence that
> wouldn't make sense in normal police procedures...that were just
> passed by time and again.
>
> > Now, before the conspiracists (who actually took the time to read my
> > response) rush to say, "a-ha, so you're admitting the CE399 bullet came
> > out in a manner not consistent with the path it took through Kennedy and
> > Connally, therefore you're admitting it was planted? No, so sorry, I'm
> > not.
>
> It probably was planted and substiuted after the find. None of the
> people at the hospital agreed that the bullet they found was the shape
> of the bullet they used in evidence.
>
> > Those that think that, trying reading this post again because you're
> > missing the point.
>
> I think the point is, there was too many people that saw too many
> bullets. One found in the grass. One hitting the curb on the
> opposite side of the street. A video clearly showing JFK grabbing for
> his throat way before JBC is hit, people reacting to a bullet in the
> limo flying over before JFK is hit in the head, and a Tague shot that
> is not in line from the TSBD. You have too much in grains extracted
> from JBC with grains that were even deemed inoperable left in the
> body, much less grains that would have been lost from the barrell and
> what would have been left inside JFK. A lot of people didn't care for
> JFK, lot's. The one-man theory is just as dead as it ever has been.
>
> CJ
Hallelujah and Amen!! The Lone Nut theory is complete and utter
hogwash, anyone with half a brain can see that.
thali...@hotmail.com
Sorry, that story is an unlikely one. I would like to see this TV
interview that mentions David Ferrie. Have you seen it?
yeuhd
Orleans:
1. Oswald's arrest record.
2. Newspaper accounts of Oswald's arrest. New Orleans Times-Picayune,
August 13, 1963:
"Lee Oswald, 4907 Magazine, Monday was sentenced to pay a fine of ten
dollars or serve ten days in jail on the charge of disturbing the
peace by creating a scene."
3. The address Oswald stamped on some of his "Fair Play for Cuba"
handbills.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0242b.htm
curtjester1
> On May 19, 10:03 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > James Hosty states in his book that it WAS Oswald's wallet at the Tippit
> > murder scene.
>
> > Is it your understanding that Hosty was a Liar???
>
> Does anyone in your paranoid world ever make an honest error? Hosty was
> not at the scene of Tippit's murder and never saw the wallet in question.
> He heard the story from FBI agent Robert M. Barrett -- who saw the wallet,
> but never examined its contents. In other words, Hosty's account was third
> hand.
>
> Dallas WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland, who was there and who filmed the
> police officers examining the wallet, said it was Tippit’s wallet.
>
I would think that this would trump any of the police reports that were
'missing' concerning this. And the testimony is even more revealing of
Barrett when he arrived at tthe scene (parked accross from Scoggins..and I
assume walked toward Jefferson which was a few houses away). Barrett:
"I went on over there and Captain Westbrook was there with several of his
officers...It hadn't been very long when Westbrook looked up and called me
over. He had this wallet in his hand. Now, I don't know where he found
it, but he had the wallet in his hand. I presumed that they found it on
or near Tippit. (If they did, why on earth didn't the people attending
Tippit report the wallet?) Westbrook asked me, 'Do you know who Lee
Harvey Oswald is?' And, 'Do you know who Alex Hidell is?' And I said, 'No,
I never heard of them.'" (Myers) Westbrook then showed Barrett the wallet
and contents.
> Nowhere in the testimony or the reports of Dallas police officers
> Westbrook, Hill, Doughty, or Poe, is the wallet mentioned.
>
> It remains an unsolved, and endlessly debatable, mystery.
No, it is quite solved as far as there being two wallets and different
people being tied to the two different wallets. It's a 'mystery' only
because two wallets are problematic for one person killing JFK and J.D.
Tippit. They have to take the side that the whole wallet thing is 'too
muddled' and somehow must become 'one wallet'. Unfortunately, the wallet
is like other findings, being ID'd at one point and at the next point
having a whole new spin on it...e.g. Minox Camera e.g clothing and items
seen by others as Oswald was wearing or had in his possession...where none
of those items were ever found on the arrestee Oswald. It's too easy to
fall in the trap of 'convenient testimony or evidence'.
CJ
tomnln
You wanna call a different FBI Agent a Liar??
I can post the page from Hosty's book if youl'd like.
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09154a26-bd1d-41a3...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Walt
It's not "unsolved, and endlessly debatable, mystery.".....
The solution lies in knowing that FBI agent Barrett was a damned liar.
He never saw a wallet in Captain Westbrook's hands anywhere near the
Tippit murder scene. The movie footage that was shot by the TV cameraman
which shows a wallet in a uniformed DPD officers hands was taken at the
same location where the WHITE jacket was found. That Jacket was found
behind Ballew's Texaco service station on the corner of Crawford and
Jefferson. The film footage shows the taillights of the 61 Chevy that was
parked there in the parking lot. Both the Jacket and the wallet were
filmed at the same location.....which indicates that the wallet was
probably in the pocket of that WHITE jacket, when the cop picked it off
the seat of the 1955 Oldsmobile that had the windows open.
>
> No, it is quite solved as far as there being two wallets and different
> people being tied to the two different wallets. It's a 'mystery' only
> because two wallets are problematic for one person killing JFK and J.D.
> Tippit. They have to take the side that the whole wallet thing is 'too
> muddled' and somehow must become 'one wallet'. Unfortunately, the wallet
> is like other findings, being ID'd at one point and at the next point
> having a whole new spin on it...e.g. Minox Camera e.g clothing and items
> seen by others as Oswald was wearing or had in his possession...where none
> of those items were ever found on the arrestee Oswald. It's too easy to
> fall in the trap of 'convenient testimony or evidence'.
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
yeuhd
> Another FBI Agent Robert Barett got the names Oswald/Hidell FROM the wallet.
FBI agent Robert M. Barrett told Dale Myers in 1996 that Dallas police
captain W.R. Westbrook never showed him the contents of the wallet,
nor indicated where he found the wallet. See "With Malice", pp. 288–
289.
yeuhd
> > Dallas WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland, who was there and who filmed the
> > police officers examining the wallet, said it was Tippit’s wallet.
>
> I would think that this would trump any of the police reports that were
> 'missing' concerning this.
So, you're agreeing that it was Tippit's wallet?
yeuhd
How is it problematic? We've already established that Oswald owned
more than one wallet. And whether Oswald was an innocent patsy whom
the authorities were trying to pin the Tippit murder on, or he really
did shoot and kill Tippit, establishing that Oswald's wallet was found
at the murder site would be in the Dallas police interests. As
Bugliosi writes,
"Furthermore, a Dallas police officer had just been slain. It is
inconceivable that members of the Dallas Police Department like
Captains Westbrook and Doughty and Sergeant Hill would suppress and
keep secret the fact that Tippit’s killer had left his calling card at
the murder scene. That simply would not, could not, have happened. If
Oswald’s wallet had been found at the murder scene, it is
inconceivable that nowhere in the testimony or the reports of
Westbrook, Hill, Doughty, Poe, and so on, would they bother to mention
this extremely important fact."
Dale Myers speculates that Barrett is simply mistaken, and that
Westbrook asked Barrett those questions (“Do you know who Lee Harvey
Oswald is?” and “Do you know who Alek Hidell is?”) back at police
headquarters after Oswald's arrest, not at the time the wallet was
found at the Tippit murder site.
(Of course, in the paranoid world of certain persons, there are no
honest errors or mistakes -- only "liars", as in "Is it your
understanding that Hosty was a Liar??? " and "You wanna call a
different FBI Agent a Liar??")
curtjester1
night of the assassination in 1978. Isn't it one of those, 'everybody
in the whole world knows where they were on 11/22/63 and all the
details (except Nixon, Bush.etc)? Ferrie may have been lying too,
because he tried to get corroboration he was at Marcello's trial, and
yet others say he was at Gill's office. He may have even been in
Texas as phone records from CD 75 pg. 291 indicate he was making calls
to Gill from spots in Texas in the hours just after the
assassination. (CD means it's in the WR but didn't quite find it's
way into the written record). Of course the implication is quite
severe, and well people like yourself and the HSCA would dearly like
to make that a later time, which they have conveniently done. So,
even if you buy into the theory that it was later, it had to be at
least til Nov. 25, 1963 because Ferrie's, and his accomplices Coffey
and Beauboeff who went along for the Texas weekend, were well-
documented for cities, and motels..as to not allow any earleir time to
get back. For you to assume that Mrs. Eames and Mrs. Garner would
somehow be in collusion as to be mixed up from their "right after the
assassination" rememberances is quite stretching it when it comes to
3+ days, wouldn't one think?
Of course the circumstances dictate too. Coffey and BeauBoeff told
investigators freely about Ferrie until they got to the Texas trip,
and then they wouldn't speak anymore until they got lawyers. Ferrie
also got Wasserman besides Gill. It's also a little bit leeryical
that 100 type written pages were accumulated by Garrison just for
Ferrie, and they were kept from the public, and eventually have
disappeared. So of course you know they had to get together for an
alibi on how they caught wind of the story. Enter one Jack Martin.
He already has been beaten severely and accused his boss Banister
during the struggle that he was part of the gang that did in Kennedy
while he was being beaten. He calls the police but doesn't press
charges (due to fear). He decides to let the powers of justice come
to play by calling the DA's office the next day and telling tales
about Oswald, Ferrie and Banister which get to be labeled as part of
his eccentricity. Of course, later all of those accusations have been
proven time and again especially about the extensiveness of Ferrie and
Oswald in the CAP camps. Oswald and Banister and Banister and Ferrie
are just as damaging and have been just as corroborated too, but not
to the extent of a whole squadron being investigated by others than
the soft-gloves of the FBI. Of course Gill too had to make up a lie
about the phone records for November being (lost, stolen, misplaced)
because of the implications that would have turned up.
>
> > Now, according to testimony of Hardy Davis, the bail bondsmen, Martin and
> > he had phone conversations. According to testimony, Martin mentioned he
> > had seen the report on TV between the first and second phone conversation.
> > Additional convesation between them indicate that Ferrie was already gone
> > while they were in discussion. So far you have indicated that Martin's
> > rumor is the cause for the leak of Ferrie's library card. This cannot be
> > true, and the source of the rumor being from Martin seems very implausible
> > since there is no one to be known to have received such a rumor.
> > Therefore, it is likely that Martin did hear about the library card from
> > television. If he didn't hear it from television, then there had to be
> > another one who was getting that rumor started for the reporters to come
> > to Lena Garner's home.
>
> Where did you get the idea that reporters went to Lena Garner's
> residence on November 22 because of some library card rumor? They went
> to her home because she had been Lee and Marina Oswald's landlady. To
> repeat: NO RUMOR ABOUT DAVID FERRIE'S LIBRARY CARD WAS ON TELEVISION
> OR IN THE PRESS THAT WEEKEND. Jack Martin only CLAIMED to Hardy Davis
> that he heard such a rumor on television.
>
Remember it's either the imagination of Martin, the TV showing the
story, or a leak from Dallas about the card. Now we know that Ferrie
was there asking about the card late in the evening of two
households. We know he had to be there before his trip because of
it's length and corroborating arrival at the motel and the skating
rink.
> Oswald's Magazine Street address was on record at his former employer
> the Reily coffee company, the New Orleans Public Library, and the U.S.
Now Mr. Reily and the N.O. gang and Oswald's connections might be of a
particular interest. Another time.
CJ
> Post Office in Dallas (back when Post Office regulations allowed the
> information on a change of address form to be given out to anyone who
> inquired; this regulation was still in effect as late as the 1980s).*
> Oswald's Aunt Lillian Murret knew the address too, since she helped
> Oswald find the rental. Ruth Paine knew it because she had picked
> Marina up there. The FBI had known of Oswald's residence there since
> September 1963.
>
> * On May 12, 1963, Oswald sent a change of address to the Dallas
> postmaster and asked for his mail to be forwarded to his Magazine
> Street address:http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_01...- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
help. No one is going to carry two sets of wallets on them. And as
far as DPD, one can tell a lot about their 'demeanor' when none of the
officers radioed headquarters to say they found a wallet even though
it's on television tape.
> Dale Myers speculates that Barrett is simply mistaken, and that
> Westbrook asked Barrett those questions (“Do you know who Lee Harvey
> Oswald is?” and “Do you know who Alek Hidell is?”) back at police
> headquarters after Oswald's arrest, not at the time the wallet was
> found at the Tippit murder site.
>
Well we have Hosty writing in his book, Capt. Westbrook finding a
leather wallet and ID for Lee Oswald and other ID for Alex Hidell.
Even if this is third party info, we know that he had to have heard it
from one of those parties who were actually there. From Myers book:
SA Barrett said, "The wallet was there. There's no getting around
that. Westbrook had the wallet in his hand and (Westbrook) asked me
if I knew who 'Lee Harvey Oswald' ws and who 'Hidell' was."(Malice p.
288-92) Barrett later told fellow agent Hosty the wallet contained
identification for both Lee Harvey Oswald and Alex Hidell. Barrett
told Hosty that Captain Westbrook kept the wallet and thought that he
had placed it in police property. As far as the contents or who
thumbed through them, is rather insignificant when we know that the
two names were at least derived from that wallet.
> (Of course, in the paranoid world of certain persons, there are no
> honest errors or mistakes -- only "liars", as in "Is it your
> understanding that Hosty was a Liar??? " and "You wanna call a
> different FBI Agent a Liar??")- Hide quoted text -
>
No, this is that you told about Hosty remember to TNolan? Hosty =
third party. Of course we know that Hosty's account of picking up the
wallet next to the blood is false because we actually know where the
film was shot, and that it had been handed to Sgt. Calvin Owens by a
bystander. We know that it was passed around on camera between Capt.
Doughty, Westbrook and Owens actually are handling and viewing the
wallet. We know that people at the Tippit murder scene who noticed
and did everything didn't notice the wallet there. We also know that
the name 'Oswald' was used as he was being rushed out of the theater,
and the only way that name could be known at that time for official
purposes would be via the wallet they found there on Jefferson. It's
a fact that Westbrook and I believe Barrett left there and were at the
Texas Theater from that scene just a few minutes later.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
I have yet to see proof of a wallet.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yup, Walt, we know whatever Barrett said, can't diminish all the other
pieces of evidence around that scene. That was real astute of you to
get the facts straight about where that TV footage was filmed. Very
important, very important, indeed!
CJ
Anthony Marsh
> On May 18, 12:04 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It certainly *had* to be a David Ferrie library card. Wray Gill, who
>> Ferrie worked for and was Carlos Marcello's attorney caught wind of it
>> before anyone would have a right to know.
>
> Jack Martin claimed to authorities in New Orleans that Oswald had
> Ferrie’s library card in his possession at the time of his arrest, and
> had used the card to obtain books from the New Orleans Public Library.
> No such library card of Ferrie’s was found in Oswald’s possession at
> the time of his arrest or at any other time.
>
>
Jack Martin was an alcoholic and troublemaker. He was only trying to
annoy Ferrie by spreading that rumor.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b0608086-0c1d-49a4...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
FBI Agent Jim Hosty Disagrees with you .
SEE his book, "Assignment Oswald".
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:48342320$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
1. Film of wallet
2. FBI Agent Hosty's book
3. FBI Agent Robert Barret
What more could you possibly want Marsh?
Anthony Marsh
> curtjester1 said: "Oh, like they would know in advance. The
> conspiratists bumbled, and bumbled all the time. They just denied,
> stonewalled, or covered-up. Just like the library card found on
> Oswald...the ol' hot potato routine."
>
> ...in response to yeuhd asking: "1. Why would someone plant a bullet in
> the condition that CE399 was, inviting decades of skepticism?"
>
> To answer this, we need to use what the conspiracists' lack in their
> arguments -- common sense.
>
> CE399 bullet would not be used for a plant. Why would sinister
> conspirators want to shout from the mountaintops and take the risk of
> revealing their own conspiracy? as in: "Hey, look at us! We're planting
> a slightly damaged bullet just so the assassination will look like a
> conspiracy."
>
> Please...
>
> conspiracy, given the path it took through Kennedy and Connally, because
> it's less likely to have ended up in the condition it did **in the minds
> of the general public and lay people who are not well-educated in the
> knowledge of ballistics and the randomness of how bullets behave, and
> the infinite number of ways a bullet can be damaged after they are fired
> through targets.**
>
You are begging the question. A circular argument.
> In other words, the alleged conspirators would have, more than likely,
> planted a fired bullet that looked more like what most people generally
> think a bullet would look like, rather than a bullet that would bring up
> much more controversy, therefore drawing much unwanted attention, thus
> uncovering their conspiratorial acts.
>
They would have to plant an intact bullet which could be linked back to
Oswald.
> Now, before the conspiracists (who actually took the time to read my
> response) rush to say, "a-ha, so you're admitting the CE399 bullet came
> out in a manner not consistent with the path it took through Kennedy and
> Connally, therefore you're admitting it was planted? No, so sorry, I'm not.
>
> Those that think that, trying reading this post again because you're
> missing the point.
>
> James
>
> "curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3eada29f-2a10-4779...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 16, 8:07 pm, yeuhd <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote:
>> On May 16, 9:37 pm, HPW...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a
>> > > different fashion from each other?
>>
>> > Simple. It was a plant used to frame Oswald.
>>
>> If it was a "plant" --
>>
>> 1. Why would someone plant a bullet in the condition that CE399 was,
>> inviting decades of skepticism?
>>
> Oh, like they would know in advance. The conspiratists bumbled, and
> bumbled all the time. They just denied, stonewalled, or covered-up.
> Just like the library card found on Oswald...the ol' hot potato
> routine.
>
>> 2. How did the person(s) get the barrel markings of Oswald's rifle on
>> the bullet?
>>
> If they can manufacture a money order and an order blank, all they had
> to do would be to get the rifle into play and monitor it. Just give
> it a fire, and keep the bullet.
>
>> 3. How would the person(s) planting the bullet know how many bullets
>> would be recovered in surgery and in the limousine, and thus whether
>> CE399 would be one bullet too many?
>
> The idea of having a bullet tagged to a specific weapon trumped
> anything. Or IOW, what if the bullet(s) couldn't be tagged to a MC?
>
> CJ
>
>
>
yeuhd
> (Of course, in the paranoid world of certain persons, there are no honest
> errors or mistakes -- only "liars", as in "Is it your understanding that
> Hosty was a Liar??? " and "You wanna call a different FBI Agent a Liar??")
>
> FBI Agent Jim Hosty Disagrees with you .
>
> SEE his book, "Assignment Oswald".
Hosty's knowledge of the wallet's contents was third hand; Hosty was
not at the site of Tippit's murder, and never saw the wallet. As I
recall, you dismiss even second-hand knowledge as "hearsay".
curtjester1
I don't think you could say calling your boss a killer of Kennedy one day,
calling the DA on Ferrie for all his involvment with Banister and Oswald
(which was true) a rumor. When are you going to say he was telling the
truth, and when are you going to say, he stopped and started 'rumoring'?
CJ
tomnln
Why don't you tell us just how Well you new Ferrie/Martin???
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:48343354$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
Selling for $275.00 plus shipping.
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0787dc22-8adc-4403...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
No proof of that link. I said the Library card was a rumor designed to
annoy Ferrie. Especially after being beaten up.
tomnln
FBI Agent Barrtett WAS at the scene.
Anthony Marsh
Film does not necessarily show a wallet and not necessarily Oswald's.
Hosty's information is second hand.
Barret was speculating.
curtjester1
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMor...
CJ
>
>
> > Now, before the conspiracists (who actually took the time to read my
> > response) rush to say, "a-ha, so you're admitting the CE399 bullet came
> > out in a manner not consistent with the path it took through Kennedy and
> > Connally, therefore you're admitting it was planted? No, so sorry, I'm not.
>
> > Those that think that, trying reading this post again because you're
> > missing the point.
>
> > James
>
> > "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3eada29f-2a10-4779...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 16, 8:07 pm, yeuhd <wall...@mailbag.com> wrote:
> >> On May 16, 9:37 pm, HPW...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > > How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a
> >> > > different fashion from each other?
>
> >> > Simple. It was a plant used to frame Oswald.
>
> >> If it was a "plant" --
>
> >> 1. Why would someone plant a bullet in the condition that CE399 was,
> >> inviting decades of skepticism?
>
> > Oh, like they would know in advance. The conspiratists bumbled, and
> > bumbled all the time. They just denied, stonewalled, or covered-up.
> > Just like the library card found on Oswald...the ol' hot potato
> > routine.
>
> >> 2. How did the person(s) get the barrel markings of Oswald's rifle on
> >> the bullet?
>
> > If they can manufacture a money order and an order blank, all they had
> > to do would be to get the rifle into play and monitor it. Just give
> > it a fire, and keep the bullet.
>
> >> 3. How would the person(s) planting the bullet know how many bullets
> >> would be recovered in surgery and in the limousine, and thus whether
> >> CE399 would be one bullet too many?
>
> > The idea of having a bullet tagged to a specific weapon trumped
> > anything. Or IOW, what if the bullet(s) couldn't be tagged to a MC?
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> Hey Marsh;
>
> Why don't you tell us just how Well you new Ferrie/Martin???
>
>
> news:48343354$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
> > yeuhd wrote:
> >> On May 18, 12:04 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> It certainly *had* to be a David Ferrie library card. Wray Gill, who
> >>> Ferrie worked for and was Carlos Marcello's attorney caught wind of it
> >>> before anyone would have a right to know.
>
> >> Jack Martin claimed to authorities in New Orleans that Oswald had
> >> Ferrie’s library card in his possession at the time of his arrest, and
> >> had used the card to obtain books from the New Orleans Public Library.
> >> No such library card of Ferrie’s was found in Oswald’s possession at
> >> the time of his arrest or at any other time.
>
> > Jack Martin was an alcoholic and troublemaker. He was only trying to annoy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Nolly, I have looked up where you have seen a video tape of
Blakely saying that Oswald had Ferrie's library card on the day of his
arrest. Did Blakely give any source for this?
tomnln View profile
I have Robert Blakey on Video Tape stating that Oswald did indeed use
Ferrie's Library card. <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote in message news:
1112049105....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > I don't know
what else can be discovered about this. > There was no Ferrie library
card in Oswald's posessions. > All of the discussion in 1963 documents
of the library card tracks back > to Jack S. Martin. This can be
easily and unequivocally proven. Martin > himself could offer nothing
to document it, other than that he > misunderstood something he saw on
TV. > The only possible argument concerns why Ferrie apparently
visited > Oswald's neighbors/landlords. If one presumes the worst
about Ferrie, > that he was Oswald's bud all that summer, yes, it
seems suspicious. But > if one does not presume Ferrie's guilt and
sees it in context of what > he knew and when he knew it, there is
enough room for doubt. > But I would certainly be willing to consider
any new info about this.
More options 28 Mar 2005, 18:50
CJ
yeuhd
> Now we know that Ferrie
> was there asking about the card late in the evening of two
> households. We know he had to be there before his trip because of
> it's length and corroborating arrival at the motel and the skating
> rink.
It's more likely that Ferrie showed up at the two homes, asking about
the library card rumor, several days after the assassination. Ferrie's
whereabouts on November 22 are accounted for, and he didn't even learn
of the library card rumor until November 24. Remember, Oswald's former
landlady Mrs. Garner wasn't interviewed about Ferrie until 1967. She
said reporters "swarmed" to her home that weekend, so she can be
forgiven for forgetting exactly when David Ferrie was there.
(And no, folks, let's not repeat that "Are you calling her a
liar???!!!" business. Memories are imperfect, and people make honest
errors.)
Anthony Marsh
It doesn't have to be hearsay, but it often is.
> FBI Agent Barrtett WAS at the scene.
>
>
So what? Doesn't mean that he knew what was going on.
>
>
thali...@hotmail.com
Just because Ferrie's "whereabouts" are accounted for on that weekend
doesn't mean someone wasn't involved in the assassination. Ferrie's
behaviour that weekend was unusual and he lied about going goose hunting.
He was seen at an ice skating rink making phone calls... and Jim Garrison
found him to be suspicious in his bevaviour when he was called in for
questioning (this interview took place long before Garrisson got
suspicious about CIA involvement in the assassination, but probrably
planted the "seed" so to speak)
curtjester1
> On May 22, 5:02 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Now we know that Ferrie
> > was there asking about the card late in the evening of two
> > households. We know he had to be there before his trip because of
> > it's length and corroborating arrival at the motel and the skating
> > rink.
>
> It's more likely that Ferrie showed up at the two homes, asking about
> the library card rumor, several days after the assassination. Ferrie's
No, it's not more likely. Again, Mrs. Garner said in 1978 it was the day
of the assassination. This is not an event that would be shoved off into
someone's obsure memory. It was history, the biggest day of the 20th
century, and to be a part of that day would make it all the more special
and eventful. I still remember walking down the hall of my eighth grade
school and hearing of it and entering my history class and seeing how
upset Mr. Bidgood was.
> whereabouts on November 22 are accounted for, and he didn't even learn
No, they are not well-accounted for. He was said in an earlier thread of
perhaps being in Texas because of his phone calls to Gill. CD 75 pg. 291
> of the library card rumor until November 24. Remember, Oswald's former
> landlady Mrs. Garner wasn't interviewed about Ferrie until 1967. She
> said reporters "swarmed" to her home that weekend, so she can be
> forgiven for forgetting exactly when David Ferrie was there.
>
He came late at night, probably 10-11 P.M. That's more than odd. David
Ferrie is more than odd by appearance and personality. Asking for a
library card is very odd. And saying he had nothing to do with
assassinating the President is very shall we say potentially Freudian.
Why else does one think that Ferrie would take off late at night and drive
through a violent thunderstorm? He knew that in the least he was in
trouble with being linked to the crime, and needed to make phone calls to
get an alibi together. He took no rifles and said he went goose-hunting.
This is a man on the run...thinking trouble. This is a man that actually
called the rink in Houston the day of the assassination asking if the
place was going to be open.
> (And no, folks, let's not repeat that "Are you calling her a
> liar???!!!" business. Memories are imperfect, and people make honest
> errors.)
But she didn't, and we see you are only being an apologetic. Mr. Martin
wasn't imagining when he told Banister that he might as well kill him like
he did Kennedy. Do you think he had time to make up a rumor? Everything
he told the DA the next day about Ferrie was true that he saw Oswald in
the midst of Banister's office with others when other's eventually
corroborated, and that Ferrie taught Oswald how to shoot a rifle at the
camps. All proven without a shadow of doubt.
tomnln
In your attempt to "salvage" the WCR, are you telling us that BOTH FBI
Agents are Liars?
How many OTHER Lies did they tell?
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since they (Ferrie, Beauboeff and Coffey) got caught in the no goose
hunting fib (no rifles taken on trip either), they stuck to the going-
there-on-business routine. That was because they were accomplished
skaters and they wanted to see about opening up one. Chuck Rolland
the proprietor, the one who took Ferrie's phone call on the 22nd, said
when interviewed, that there was no skating by them, and there was no
business talk about any costs to equip a rink.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Not liars. Uniformed.
> How many OTHER Lies did they tell?
>
>
Lots.
>
tomnln
You were NOT there
And, You claim that Barrett was "Uninformed"
And, You claim that You ARE Informed???
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IICdnSinYYOXVKvV...@comcast.com...
yeuhd
> Barrett was there
> You were NOT there
>
> And, You claim that Barrett was "Uninformed"
Robert M. Barrett himself said, in so many words, that he was
uninformed. He told Dale Myers in 1996 that:
1. He never saw the contents of the wallet.
2. He was not told where the wallet was found.
3. He was never told whose wallet it was. He inferred it was Oswald's
wallet from the questions that Dallas police captain W.R. Westbrook
asked him.
So, yes, Barrett was uninformed about the wallet.
Barrett, in his FBI report on the day of the assassination, in which
he discusses going to the Tippit murder scene, does not mention the
wallet incident.
tomnln
On May 23, 11:50 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Barrett was there
> You were NOT there
>
> And, You claim that Barrett was "Uninformed"
Robert M. Barrett himself said, in so many words, that he was
uninformed. He told Dale Myers in 1996 that:
Dale myers is NOT an "official source".
1. He never saw the contents of the wallet.
Barrett was asked asbout the TWO ID's contained in that wallet
2. He was not told where the wallet was found.
Barrett was at the scene where nthe wallet was found.
3. He was never told whose wallet it was. He inferred it was Oswald's
wallet from the questions that Dallas police captain W.R. Westbrook asked
him.
Is the ID of "John Smith" found in YOUR wallet?
So, yes, Barrett was uninformed about the wallet.
NOT according to what he SAID.
Barrett, in his FBI report on the day of the assassination, in which he
discusses going to the Tippit murder scene, does not mention the wallet
incident.
How do you know it's NOT contained in the MANY documents Still Locked up?
Official records state that it was Oswald's wallet & you're STUCK with
them.