Oswald and the revolver

In this post, I briefly discussed the issue of Oswald’s ownership of the revolver he was allegedly carrying when arrested. In this post, I discuss the inconsistencies with the statements by the arresting Officers, and other witnesses to Oswald’s arrest who claimed Oswald had possession of the revolver. I will hopefully convince you that this was yet another bunch of lies fabricated by the DPD to incriminate Oswald. In the following post, I discuss the complicity of DPD Sgt Gerald Hill, in framing Oswald for the murder of Officer JD Tippit!

The scuffle with Oswald

According to the official story, as DPD Patrolman M. Nick McDonald approached Oswald, he ordered Oswald to stand up. Oswald allegedly yelled out “Well, it’s all over now”, then hit McDonald’s nose with his fist (I discussed this issue in this post). Oswald then allegedly pulled the revolver from his belt and tried to shoot McDonald. However, the gun didn’t fire because McDonald allegedly prevented it from firing by jamming his hand between the gun and the hammer.

After ceasing the gun from Oswald’s hand, McDonald then allegedly gave the gun to detective Bob Carroll, who was standing in the aisle of the Theatre. After Oswald was handcuffed and removed from the Theatre, Carroll allegedly handed the revolver to Sgt Gerald Hill. Lone gunman zealots have naturally accepted this story as being the truth. However, there are inconsistencies and contradictions with the official version of events.

Let’s begin with whether or not McDonald’s claim of preventing the gun from firing has any merit. During a “reconstruction” of Oswald’s arrest on CBS -TV, McDonald demonstrated that as Oswald allegedly tried to allegedly shoot him, he had wedged his hand between the firing pin and hammer. However, this is not what he claimed during his interview with WFAA -TV the day following the assassination. During this interview, McDonald explained that:

 “As it [the revolver] was coming out, he [Oswald] snapped the trigger on the pistol, and it misfired luckily”.

McDonald claimed that the gun had misfired - and made no mention of preventing the gun from firing. He repeated this claim in his report concerning Oswald’s arrest – and once again failed to mention that he had prevented the gun from firing. Therefore, McDonald’s latter claim that he had prevented the gun from firing was a lie. In fact, DPD detective Paul Bentley made the following claim during his interview with reporters:

“Officer McDonald had a hold of his, of the gun, I had a hold of his right arm, we got a thumb or something in between the hammer and the firing pin so that it mashed the firing, it just snapped slightly and kept it from going off.”

As we can see, Bentley took part of the credit for preventing the gun from firing. However, when one reads through the arrest reports and Warren Commission testimonies of Officers Charles Walker, Thomas Hutson, Ray Hawkins, and even McDonald’s, it’s quite obvious that Walker, Hutson, and Hawkins had reached Oswald prior to Bentley - and none of them corroborated Bentley's claim. Therefore Bentley was certainly lying when he took credit for preventing the gun from firing. I also discussed McDonald’s and Bentley’s credibility problems in previous posts.

However, should one need further reason to believe McDonald was a lair, just consider the fact that he took credit for sorting out the situation at the Jefferson branch Library. The DPD had converged on the Library (located on Marsalis and Jefferson streets) when Charles Walker broadcast on the police radio that he had seen a man run into the Library. This turned out to be a false alarm. Despite McDonald’s claim that he was responsible for sorting out the situation – not one of his fellow Officers confirmed that this was the case!

Furthermore, McDonald claimed that his left cheek was scratched by “Oswald’s” revolver during the scuffle. Although there certainly was a scratch on his cheek, there is simply no reason to believe that it was caused by the revolver as McDonald asserted. The scratch could have been caused by the ring which Oswald was wearing on his right hand. Or perhaps it was created sometime prior to Oswald’s arrest – with McDonald then placing the blame for the scratch on the revolver. However, there’s no way to be certain.

The more important issue concerning Oswald’s alleged possession of the revolver inside the Theatre is whether he had actually pulled it out of his belt as he was being arrested. This is one aspect of Oswald’s arrest which is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. For example, Johnny Brewer (who allegedly saw Oswald enter the Theatre looking scared) claimed in his Warren commission testimony that Oswald had the gun up in the air. Yet, Brewer’s account is contradicted by the DPD Officers near Oswald, and by Theatre Patrons John Gibson and George Applin, who witnessed Oswald’s arrest.

Mr. Belin 

Who hit who first?

Mr. Brewer 

Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.

Mr. Belin 

Who knocked who?

Mr. Brewer 

He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.

Mr. Belin 

When you say he was----

Mr. Brewer  

McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.

Mr. Belin  

Did you see from where the gun came?

Mr. Brewer 

No.

Mr. Belin 

You saw the gun up in the air?

Mr. Brewer 

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

Brewer’s testimony concerning the revolver is interesting for three reasons. Firstly, Brewer claimed Oswald held the gun up in the air. Secondly, when Joseph Ball asked Brewer if he knew where the gun came from, he answered with a no (yet the arresting Officers assured us that Oswald pulled it out of his belt). Third, Brewer claimed that the arresting Officers were hitting Oswald – whereas the official story is that only Officer McDonald hit Oswald. If Brewer was being truthful, then obviously the arresting Officers were lying when they claimed they didn’t hit Oswald! Otherwise, it was Brewer who was lying.

The following is the Warren Commission testimony of Theatre patron, John Gibson.

Mr. Ball

What did you see happen?

Mr. Gibson

Well, I was standing there watching all this going on and then the policeman started down the aisle--I would say there was another--I don't know, maybe six or eight--started down the aisles.

Mr. Ball

When you say "down the aisles," you mean all of the aisles?

Mr. Gibson

Toward the screen--I don't know if they were going down all of them or not. I don't believe there was any--there was one policeman standing, it seems to me like, right on the other side of me, in the far aisle just behind me--I don't think there was anybody going down the far aisle next to the wall on my side.

Mr. Ball

What aisles did you see policemen going down?

Mr. Gibson

I saw them going down what I would call the two big centre aisles, and then the next thing was--Oswald was standing in the aisle with a gun in his hand.

Mr. Ball

That's the next thing you saw?

Mr. Gibson

Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball

Was there anybody with him--near him?

Mr. Gibson

I couldn't swear to that--I don't know--you mean other policemen?

Mr. Ball

That's what I mean--was he in the aisles?

Mr. Gibson

Well, he was in the aisle when I saw him.

Mr. Ball

What was he doing?

Mr. Gibson

Well, he had this pistol in his hand.

Gibson claimed during his testimony that Oswald was standing in the aisle with the revolver in his hand. However, no witness corroborated Gibson’s account of Oswald standing in the aisle with the revolver. Also, despite the fact that Officers Walker, Hutson, and Hawkins all testified that they were struggling with Oswald when he allegedly pulled it out of his belt; Gibson claimed he couldn’t tell whether Oswald was scuffling with the Officers when he had the revolver in his hand!   

The following is the Warren Commission testimony of Theatre Patron, George Applin:

Mr. Ball 

What did the officer do?

Mr. Applin 

The officer grabbed him then.

Mr. Ball 

Had you seen the pistol up to that time?

Mr. Applin 

No, sir; there was not one in view then.

Mr. Ball 

How soon after that did you see the pistol?

Mr. Applin 

I guess it was about--I guess it was about 2 or 3 seconds.

Mr. Ball 

Who pulled the pistol?

Mr. Applin 

I guess it was Oswald, because--for one reason, that he had on a short sleeve shirt, and I seen a man's arm that was connected to the gun.

As we can see, Applin indicated in his testimony that he wasn’t sure if Oswald had the gun (despite allegedly claiming in his affidavit to the Dallas Sheriff’s Office that Oswald did in fact have the gun). Applin also indicated that Oswald was wearing a short sleeve shirt. However, as most researchers are aware, Oswald was wearing a long sleeve dark brown shirt.

So far we’ve looked at the statements by the three non DPD witnesses to Oswald’s arrest, and not only are their statements not consistent with each other’s, but also contradict the statements by the DPD Officers! Let’s bear in mind that none of the arresting Officers claimed Oswald had held the gun up in the air as Johnny Brewer declared. In addition, the arresting Officers claimed that Oswald was still near his seat when scuffling – and not in the aisle as per John Gibson’s assertion.

The following are excerpts from the Warren Commission testimonies of the arresting Officers, beginning with Nick McDonald.

Mr. Ball  

What happened then?

Mr. McDonald 

Well, whenever I hit him, we both fell into the seats. While we were struggling around there, with this hand on the gun—

Mr. Ball  

Your left hand?

Mr. McDonald  

Yes, sir. Somehow I managed to get this hand in the action also.

Mr. Ball 

Your right hand?

Mr. McDonald  

Yes, sir. Now, as we fell into the seats, I called out, "I have got him," and Officer T. A. Hutson, he came to the row behind us and grabbed Oswald around the neck. And then Officer C. T. Walker came into the row that we were in and grabbed his left arm. And Officer Ray Hawkins came to the row in front of us and grabbed him from the front. By the time all three of these officers had got there, I had gotten my right hand on the butt of the pistol and jerked it free.

From the testimony of Ray Hawkins:

Mr. Ball

What was Officer McDonald doing at that time?

Mr. Hawkins

I remember seeing him standing beside Oswald, and when I arrived where they were, both of them were down in the seat--Oswald and McDonald had both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got there, a gun was pulled, came out of Oswald's belt and was pulled across to their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre. Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember, Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, "I've got the gun," and he took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald.

From the testimony of Charles Walker:

Mr. Belin

When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?

Mr. Walker

He had ahold of the handle of it.

Mr. Belin

Handle of what?

Mr. Walker

The revolver.

Mr. Belin

Was there a revolver there?

Mr. Walker

Yes; there was.

Mr. Belin

All right.

Mr. Walker

And it stayed there for a second or two. He didn't get it out. McDonald had come forward and was holding his hand. Ray Hawkins was behind me to my left at that time, and whether or not he came at the same time we did or not, but he was there, and there was a detective. Oswald had ahold of my shirt and he practically pulled off my nameplate by ripping it with his hand. and I was bent over, and I was in an awkward position, and I could see several hands on the gun. The gun finally got out of his belt, and it was about waist high and pointed out at about a 45 degree angle. I turned around and I was holding Oswald trying to get his arm up behind him in a hammerlock, and I heard it click. I turned around and the gun was still pointing at approximately a 45 angle. Be pointed slightly toward the screen, what I call. Now Hawkins was in the general direction of the gun.

From the testimony of Thomas Hutson:

Mr. Belin

Then what did you see happen?

Mr. Hutson

I Saw McDonald down in the he seat beside this person, and this person was in a half standing crouching position pushing down on the left side of McDonald's face, and McDonald was trying to push him off.

Mr. Belin

This person was right-handed? You have used a motion here that he was pushing on the left side of McDonald's face?

Mr. Hutson

Right.

Mr. Belin

All right.

Mr. Hutson

And McDonald was trying to hold him off with his hand.

Mr. Belin

All right.

Mr. Hutson

I reached over from the back of the seat with my right arm and put it around this person's throat.

Mr. Belin

All right.

Mr. Hutson

And pulled him back up on the back of the seat that he was originally sitting in. At this time Officer C. T. Walker came up in the same row of seats that the struggle was taking place in and grabbed this person's left hand and held it.

Mr. Belin

Okay.

Mr. Hutson

McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.

As we can see, there is no corroboration for the allegations of Johnny Brewer and John Gibson. In fact, McDonald, Hawkins, and Hutson all claimed that Oswald and McDonald were down in the seats when scuffling. Walker claimed that there were several hands on the gun as Oswald was allegedly trying to pull it out. However, McDonald and Hutson indicated that only McDonald and Oswald had their hands on the gun. Now if Walker’s claim that several hands were on the revolver simultaneously, then how the heck did Oswald manage to pull the revolver out of his belt? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, Walker claimed that Oswald held the gun at only waist height (and not “up in the air” as Brewer claimed). It should also be noted that in his arrest report, detective Paul Bentley claimed that he had seen Oswald pull a gun from his shirt. He also claimed that he grabbed Oswald by the neck. However, according to the arrest reports and testimonies of Hutson, McDonald, Walker, and Hawkins, it was Hutson who had grabbed Oswald around his neck – and there is absolutely no corroboration that Bentley had grabbed Oswald by the neck. Bentley was therefore lying.

Now, if you want further evidence that the statements by the arresting Officers should not be considered reliable, then just consider that Hutson claimed in his testimony that he was responsible for handcuffing Oswald along with Hawkins. Yet Hill claimed in his testimony that it was actually Hawkins and himself who had handcuffed Oswald. Although it’s only a minor detail, it is nevertheless another example of the unreliability of the claims by the arresting Officers.

Further evidence of the unreliability of the statements concerning Oswald’s arrest, is the lack of consistency of the accounts of how Oswald struck Officer McDonald. For example, McDonald and Captain W.R Westbrook claimed Oswald hit McDonald with his left fist. Ray Hawkins and George Applin claimed Oswald hit McDonald with his right fist. Walker claimed Oswald hit him with his left fist first, and then with his right fist! Hutson on the other hand claimed visibility in the Theatre was too poor to be able to tell which fist Oswald had struck McDonald with! Brewer, Gibson, and the remainder of the arresting Officers, made no statements concerning how Oswald struck McDonald. It should also be noted that Brewer claimed Oswald knocked McDonald down when he first struck him with his fist! However, neither McDonald nor any other witness corroborated Brewer’s assertion.

Based on the inconsistencies and contradictions outlined above, there is good reason to disbelieve the entire scenario regarding Oswald’s arrest and his alleged attempt at trying to shoot Officer McDonald (not that diehard lone gunman zealots would ever admit it, mind you). Now, although I do believe Oswald punched McDonald, based on the lack of credibility of the witnesses to Oswald’s arrest, I don’t believe he ever tried to shoot McDonald. Based on the evidence, I believe it was yet another lie invented by the DPD to incriminate Oswald. But if the above is not enough to convince you that the DPD were lying, then what follows hopefully will.

The “misfiring” of the revolver

Several witnesses to Oswald’s arrest claimed they heard what sounded like the hammer of the revolver snap against the firing pin – with the revolver misfiring. DPD Officer Nick McDonald claimed in his arrest report, and during his interview on WFAA -TV, that he heard the hammer snap. Charles Walker also made this claim in both his arrest report and during his Warren Commission testimony. Thomas Hutson made this claim during his Warren Commission testimony – but didn’t mention it in his arrest report. Paul Bentley also made this claim during his interview on KRLD -TV – but like Hutson, failed to mention it in his arrest report. In addition, Theatre Patrons John Gibson and George Applin also claimed they heard what they thought to be the hammer of the revolver snap.

The obvious implication of the above is that Oswald tried to shoot Officer McDonald. When the DPD examined the cartridges inside the revolver, they “discovered” an indentation/nick on one of them – which they claimed had been caused by the firing pin of the revolver. However, when Courtland Cunningham (one of the FBI’s firearm experts) examined the cartridge with the so-called indentation, he claimed it had not been caused by the firing pin of the revolver. Below is Cunningham’s testimony before the Warren Commission.

Mr. Eisenberg

Mr. Cunningham, returning to Exhibit 145, do either of the two cartridges in Exhibit 145 bear any signs of having suffered an impact from the firing pin in the revolver, Exhibit 143?

Mr. Cunningham

An examination of these two cartridges, the primers of these two cartridges, reveals no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143, or any other weapon.

Mr. Eisenberg

Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?

Mr. Cunningham

Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.

Mr. Eisenberg

Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?

Mr. Cunningham

There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the centre of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin.

So despite the DPD’s assertion that the hammer of “Oswald’s” revolver had struck the firing pin and misfired, Cunningham could find no evidence that this was the cause of the nick on the cartridge in question. So if the firing pin didn’t cause the nick, then what did? In my opinion, the DPD deliberately added the nick to the cartridge, to make it look as if Oswald had tried to shoot McDonald. Unless of course, we are to believe it was just a coincidence that the aforementioned witnesses heard what they believed to be the snap of the hammer, and there also just happened to be a nick in one of the cartridges. If you ask me, I think that notion is completely absurd. 

The Warren commission ultimately agreed with the FBI that the revolver did not misfire. So if the snapping sound wasn’t the hammer striking the firing pin, then the question is what was it? Officer Ray Hawkins believed the sound may have been come from the seats in the Theatre. From Hawkins’ testimony:

Mr. Ball

Did you hear any snap of the hammer?

Mr. Hawkins

I heard something that I thought was a snap. I didn't know whether it was a snap of a pistol--I later learned that they were sure it was. I didn't know whether it was a snap of the gun or whether it was in the seats someone making the noise.

Mr. Ball

There was some noise you heard?

Mr. Hawkins

Yes, sir; there was.

Mr. Ball

You couldn't identify it?

Mr. Hawkins

No, sir; I don't think so---I don't think I could say for sure.

In my opinion, the snapping sound was actually the sound of one of the seats breaking during the scuffle with Oswald. Think about it, with Oswald fighting with several DPD Officers between the seats as they were trying to arrest him, it is quite likely that part of one of the seats had snapped. This would certainly account for the sound heard by the witnesses mentioned above. In my opinion, the DPD then used the statements of the witnesses who heard this sound, to add the nick to one of the cartridges - in order to further incriminate Oswald. Besides, what other logical explanation is there?
 

After reading through the above information, I hope you have come to realize that the entire scenario of Oswald pulling a revolver from his belt and trying to shoot Officer Nick McDonald was a crock! Now this doesn’t mean the DPD were part of the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy, or to murder one of their fellow Police Officers. But let’s get real, after Oswald was apprehended as a suspect, and charged for both murders, they had to ensure Oswald would be convicted. Otherwise, the DPD would have to search in vain for other suspects (please see here for further discussion of this issue).

Also, let’s bear in mind that the first individual reports by the Officers involved in Oswald’s arrest were submitted on the 2^nd of December (10 days following the assassination). Still, with all of the above inconsistencies and contradictions outlined above, lone gunman kooks tell us that Oswald actually did pull a gun from his belt, and tried to shoot Officer McDonald. The fact that they don’t acknowledge the significance of the inconsistencies and contradictions amongst the eye witness accounts is yet another testament to their lack of honesty and credibility.
 

The one final point I would like to make, is that I do believe Oswald struck McDonald with his fist as claimed. However, I believe he did this only because he became agitated as McDonald placed his hands near his waist whilst searching him. I will elaborate on this issue in my upcoming post.

Oswald and the Hidell ID

According to the Warren report, Oswald was arrested carrying identification for two different names. One was for his actual name, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the other for the fictitious name, Alek James Hidell. The Hidell name was on a Selective Service card, with a photo of Oswald. We were also informed by the Warren report that Oswald allegedly ordered both the rifle and the revolver using the Hidell name, but had it delivered to his post office box in Dallas - which was under his real name.

The idea that Oswald would order the rifle and revolver under the Hidell name, but have them delivered to his Post Office box under his real name, is truly absurd and bizarre. Now obviously, the purpose of using an alias is to conceal the fact that he had purchased the weapons. So why in God’s name would he have them delivered to his P.O box? The simple answer is: He wouldn’t! Please refer to this post for further discussion on the rifle order.

I realise I have stated this before. However, I honestly think it is imperative I repeat it in this post. Now, if Oswald actually purchased the rifle and revolver under the Hidell name - and then used the rifle to murder the President, why on Earth would he be carrying the Selective Service card in his Wallet? It makes absolutely no sense. Although lone gunman zealots have used the testimony of the DPD Officers as proof that Oswald had the Hidell ID inside his wallet at the time of his arrest – there is every reason to believe this was an outright lie!

First of all, consider the fact that although Paul Bentley removed Oswald’s wallet from his left pant pocket en route to City hall – neither Bentley nor any of the four other arresting Officers mentioned the name Hidell in their arrest reports! In fact, when Bentley was asked during his interview on WFAA-TV, concerning how he had obtained Oswald’s name, he made absolutely no mention of the Hidell name. Also, when Sgt Gerald Hill, District Attorney Henry Wade, Captain Will fritz, and DPD chief Jesse Curry were interviewed by reporters on the day of the President’s assassination – they never once mentioned the name Hidell! Hill also failed to mention it during his radio interview.

However, what’s even more intriguing is that on the following day, Jesse Curry had informed reporters that the money order for the rifle bearing the name A. Hidell had been discovered. Yet incredibly, he again failed to mention that a Selective Service card bearing that name was found in Oswald’s wallet! This simply defies belief.   

When Oswald was taken to City Hall, he was first placed into an interrogation room with homicide detectives, Gus Rose, and Richard Stovall. The Officer who placed him there was Charles Walker. According to Walker’s testimony, he allegedly discovered the Hidell ID in Oswald’s wallet after placing him into the interrogation room. See below.

Mr. Belin.

After you got down there, what did you do with him?

Mr. Walker.

We took him up the homicide and robbery bureau, and we went back there, and one of the detectives said put him In this room. I put him in the room, and he said, "Let the uniform officers stay with him." And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A. J. Hidell on it.

Please note, that by “Pistol” Walker surely meant wallet. He either misspoke, or the stenographer had misquoted him. Regardless of this error, Walker’s discovery of the Hidell ID was a lie. Bear in mind that Paul Bentley had claimed during his TV interviews, and in his arrest report, that he had obtained Oswald’s wallet en route to City Hall. Bentley was corroborated by Gerald Hill in his testimony. See below.

Mr. Belin.

Was he asked where he lived?

Mr. Hill.

That was the second question that was asked the suspect, and he didn't answer it, either. About the time I got through with the radio transmission, I asked Paul Bentley, "Why don't you see if he has any identification." Paul was sitting sort of sideways in the seat, and with his right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect's left hip pocket and said, "Yes, he has a billfold," and took it out. I never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this identification, I believe, was on the library card. And he also made the statement that there was some more identification in this other name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came in the paper that he bought the gun under.

Mr. Belin.

Would the name Hidell mean anything? Alek Hidell?

Mr. Hill.

That would be similar. I couldn't say specifically that is what it was, because this was a conversation and I never did see it written down, but that sounds like the name that I heard.

As we can see, Hill confirmed that Bentley had obtained Oswald’s wallet. However, neither Bentley nor Hill ever claimed that the wallet was turned over to Charles Walker once they arrived at city hall. In fact, Bentley claimed in his arrest report: “I turned his identification over to Lt. Baker”. The lieutenant Baker Bentley is referring to is T.L Baker, of the DPD homicide bureau. It is unclear exactly what Bentley meant by identification. However, bear in mind that both Bentley and Hill claimed the revolver was turned over to Baker. Hence, by all likelihood, Bentley was referring to Oswald’s Wallet and contents when he stated identification.

Unfortunately, Baker doesn’t confirm that Bentley delivered Oswald’s wallet to him. However, Baker claimed he identified Oswald to Fritz as “Lee Oswald”, and there was no mention of the name Hidell anywhere in his lengthy report! Incidentally, despite Walker’s claim of having Oswald’s wallet, he doesn’t mention this in his arrest report. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Walker was being truthful.

As mentioned previously, Oswald was initially placed into an interrogation room with detectives Gus Rose, and Richard Stovall. According to both of their Warren commission testimonies, they had Oswald’s wallet with the Selective Service card bearing the Hidell name inside of it. In the report by Rose, Stovall (and another detective named John Adamcik), they obtained Oswald’s name and ID when he was brought into the interrogation room. However, there was no mention of Hidell.

Rose informed the Warren commission that when he asked Oswald what his name was, Oswald replied that it was Hidell. See below.

Mr. Rose.

There were some people in the office from the Book Depository and we talked to a few of them and then in just a few minutes they brought in Lee Oswald and I talked to him for a few minutes?

Mr. Ball.

What did you say to him or did he say to you?

Mr. Rose.

Well, the first thing I asked him was what his name was and he told me it was Hidell.

Mr. Ball.

Did he tell you it was Hidell?

Mr. Rose.

Yes; he did

Although Rose claimed that Oswald told him his name was Hidell, Richard Stovall, who was in the interrogation with Rose, claimed Oswald told them his name was Lee Oswald. See below.

Mr. Ball.

Do you remember what was said to him and what he said to you?

Mr. Stovall.

I don't recall exactly--I went in and asked him for his identification, asked him who he was and he said his name was Lee Oswald, as well as I remember. Rose and I were both in there at the time. He had his billfold and in it he had the identification of "A. Hidell," which was on a selective service card, as well as I remember.

Now, there are a couple of problems with Rose’s and Stovall’s testimonies. Firstly, they were in the interrogation room together with Oswald. Rose claimed Oswald stated his name was Hidell, yet Stovall claimed Oswald said it was Lee Oswald. Obviously, they can’t both be telling the truth. Secondly, if Oswald really had ordered the rifle and revolver, why the heck would he inform them his name was Hidell – let alone carry the Selective Service card bearing that name in his wallet! None of this makes any sense.

Furthermore, both Rose and Stovall claimed they had Oswald’s wallet. Yet, as previously mentioned, Bentley most likely turned the Wallet over to Lt. T.L Baker. It’s also important to keep in mind that neither Bentley nor Baker claimed in their reports that they turned the wallet over to Rose and Stovall during Oswald’s interrogation. Combined with the fact that Rose and Stovall made no mention of the wallet or Hidell in their report – the most logical conclusion is that they were lying when they claimed they had Oswald’s wallet.

Based on the above information – there is absolutely no reason to believe Oswald had the Alek James Hidell Selective Service card in his wallet when he was arrested. It’s also important to note that FBI agent James Hosty (who interviewed Oswald along with FBI agent James Bookhout), didn’t mention the Hidell name in his handwritten notes. However, Hosty and Bookhout did mention it in their reports (although it could easily have been added in to their reports later). Captain Fritz also had knowledge about the Hidell name – but didn’t mention it in his notes until the day following the assassination!

Naturally, lone gunman zealots have no qualms about the lack of mention of Hidell in any of the aforementioned reports and interviews. However, they never explain why it was not mentioned – and simply take the testimonies of the DPD Officers at face value. In fact, what makes the lack of mentioning the Hidell name even more incredible (had the Selective Service card actually been found in Oswald’s wallet) is the fact that the name O.H Lee (which Oswald used to identify himself at his boarding house) was mentioned in James Hosty’s notes, T.L Baker’s report etc. Yet, the Hidell ID was not.

The final point I would like to make is that in 1963, Selective Service cards did not contain a photograph of the card bearer on them. Yet, “Oswald’s” did. As researchers such as Gil Jesus have pointed out, the card was obviously a fake to anyone who looked at. In fact, it served Oswald no useful purpose (aside from incriminating himself for the assassination). So yet again, there is no reason to believe Oswald would be carrying it in his wallet.

Now, if the Selective Service card was never in Oswald’s wallet, the obvious question is: Where was it discovered? The answer to that question is that it was found in a wallet at the Tippit murder scene. This is based on the recollections of former FBI agent, Robert Barrett. Barrett claimed that after he arrived at the Tippit murder scene, he was asked by DPD Captain W.R Westbrook, if he knew who Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek James Hidell were. Barrett also claimed that Westbrook showed him the wallet. Former FBI agent, James Hosty, wrote about Barrett’s allegations concerning the wallet in his book, Assignment Oswald.

The wallet was captured on film by WFAA cameraman, Ron Reiland. Reiland’s footage shows a uniformed police Officer (believed to be Sgt Calvin “Bud” Owens) showing the wallet to two plain clothed Officers (believed to Captain George Doughty, and Captain W.R Westbrook). See below.

Lone gunman zealots have naturally tried to dismiss Barrett’s story. For example, some such as David Von Pein have claimed that the wallet was actually Tippit’s. Others such as Dale Myers have claimed that Barrett was simply mistaken about when Captain Westbrook asked him about Oswald and Hidell. However, former DPD Officer, Leonard Jez, informed researcher Martha Moyer that the wallet at the Tippit murder scene contained ID for Oswald! Nevertheless, it is important we address these claims by lone gunman zealots.

First, let’s address the possibility of whether the wallet was Tippit’s. This allegation is based on Ron Reiland, who claimed the wallet was Tippit’s during his narration of the footage on WFAA-TV. Unfortunately for lone gunman zealots, Tippit’s wallet was accounted for at the Methodist hospital, where he was taken after he was shot. DPD Officer, W.R Bardin, filled an inventory sheet listing the items removed from Tippit following his death. One of those items was a black billfold aka wallet.

Secondly, as Dale Myers and others have noted, Reiland made a series of mistakes when describing the events following the assassination. For example, Reiland claimed the gun which Calvin Owens was holding with the wallet, belonged to Tippit’s killer. Whereas in actual fact, the gun belonged to Tippit. Now if Reiland mistook Tippit’s gun for the killers, then he should not be considered reliable. In fact, Dale Myers argued against Reiland’s credibility in his book, With Malice.

The final point I would like to make, is that there is no mention in any report or interview by DPD Officers that the wallet belonged to Tippit. Similarly, there is no mention in any report or interview that the wallet contained ID for Oswald and Hidell. However, is this supposed to come as a shock? Think about it. With a wallet already found in Oswald’s pant pocket, (and with Oswald arrested as a viable suspect for Tippit’s murder), the presence of a second would clearly indicate that Oswald was framed for Tippit’s murder.

Now, does anyone honestly believe that with a viable suspect already arrested, the DPD would allow any notion that Oswald was framed? Keep in mind that Johnny Brewer (who allegedly saw Oswald enter the Theatre looking scared) claimed he heard a Police Officer shout out to Oswald “Kill the President will you”. Julia Postal, the Theatre cashier who allegedly called the Police, overheard a Police Officer utter the words “I think we’ve got our man, on both counts”. Apparently, the DPD had decided inside the Theatre that Oswald was guilty for both the Tippit Killing and the President’s assassination. In previous posts, I also discussed the various lies by the DPD regarding evidence such as the palm print from the barrel of the rifle.

Therefore, the argument by lone gunman zealots that the DPD would not hide the fact the wallet at the Tippit murder scene contained ID for Oswald and Hidell, is simply a crock. Let’s now address the issue of whether Barrett could have been mistaken about when he was asked if he knew who Oswald and Hidell were. Firstly, Barrett was always adamant that Captain Westbrook asked him about Oswald and Hidell at the Tippit murder scene. Even Dale Myer’s acknowledged that Barrett’s recollection was consistent.

Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that Westbrook had possession of Oswald’s wallet following his arrest. As I have mentioned previously, Paul Bentley indicated that he had turned Oswald’s wallet over to Lt. T.L Baker. Furthermore, no DPD Officer (including Westbrook himself) mentioned in their reports/testimony that Westbrook had possession of Oswald’s wallet at City hall. In fact, according to Westbrook’s testimony, the only evidence he observed at City Hall immediately following Oswald’s arrest was the revolver. He also made no mention of speaking to Barrett following his return to City Hall – but indicated he returned to the scene of the Tippit with Barrett, following Oswald’s arrest at the Theatre.

Based on the above, there is no simply no reason to believe Barrett had misremembered where he was when asked about Oswald and Hidell. Besides, as I previously mentioned, DPD Officer, Leonard Jez, also recalled the wallet contained ID for Oswald. Also consider this: Julia Postal informed an FBI agent during an interview (here, page 14), that one of the Officers told her inside the Theatre that the suspects name was Oswald.  

Obviously, the Officer couldn’t have known Oswald’s name since his wallet was removed from his pant pocket inside the Police car. However, if the wallet at the Tippit murder scene contained ID for Oswald with his picture, then the Officer would have known Oswald’s name. I should note that in her affidavit to the Dallas Sheriff’s Office, Postal claimed she had heard the suspects name was Oswald at a later stage in time. However, she could easily have had her affidavit altered to conceal this fact – just as numerous witnesses such as Roger Craig had their statements altered.

There’s also the issue of the three wallets which allegedly belonged to Oswald. As discussed above, one wallet was removed from his left pant pocket en route to City hall. Another wallet was discovered on a dresser at the residence of Ruth Paine. The third wallet was by all likelihood the one discovered at the Tippit murder scene. There has never been a rational explanation by lone gunman zealots concerning this issue.

Now let’s get real people. If it wasn’t the wallet found at the Tippit murder scene, then where did it come from? We know there definitely was a third wallet, because FBI agent James Hosty signed a receipt (dated 27/11/63) for a billfold (wallet), a notebook recovered from Oswald’s rooming house, and for one spent shell casing allegedly found on the 6^th floor of the TSBD. See here.

However, despite the claims by Barrett, Jez, Postal, and the receipt for a third wallet, there is still one important question concerning the wallet at the Tippit murder scene. Why wasn’t a dispatch broadcast over the DPD radio stating that the suspect’s name was Oswald/Hidell? Many researchers who have closely studied the DPD radio transcripts have concluded that they have been altered/edited. Hence, the broadcast of Oswald/Hidell could easily have been edited out of the transcripts. In my opinion, Tippit’s killer dropped the wallet into his patrol car, as he leaned into the car to speak to him (as witnesses by Helen Markham).

In conclusion, there is no reason to believe the Selective Service card with the Hidell name was found in Oswald’s wallet - and very good reason to believe it was found inside the wallet at the Tippit murder scene. The obvious implication of this is that Oswald was framed for both the Tippit killing, and for President Kennedy’s assassination. Unless we are to entertain the utterly ridiculous notion that Oswald was carrying two wallets on his person, and happened to drop one at the Tippit murder scene – thereby incriminating himself!

As I said before, Captain Fritz did have knowledge about the Hidell name, since he mentioned it in his handwritten notes. Fritz by all likelihood learned of the Hidell name when he received the wallet at the Tippit murder scene from Captain Westbrook. Incidentally, Fritz didn’t question Oswald about the Hidell ID - until the day following the assassination. But Apart from Fritz knowledge of the Hidell name, all the evidence indicates the Selective Service card bearing the Hidell name was not in Oswald’s wallet when he was arrested.

The "Incriminating statements" by Oswald

In this post, I address the incriminating statements which Oswald allegedly uttered during and following his arrest at the Texas Theatre. As you will hopefully come to realise, these were lies by the DPD to help incriminate Oswald.

The first DPD Officer to approach Oswald in the Theatre was Patrolman, M. Nick McDonald. As McDonald approached Oswald, he asked him to get on his feet. According to McDonald, Oswald stood up and raised both of his arms. Oswald then allegedly yelled out “this is it” then struck McDonald’s nose with his fist. McDonald made this statement to WFAA-TV the day following the assassination.

The obvious implication of this statement is that Oswald had realised he had been caught after trying to get away for murdering Officer J.D Tippit. When DPD Sgt, Gerald Hill, was interviewed on television on the day of the assassination, he also claimed that Oswald yelled out “this is it”. Detective Paul Bentley was also interviewed by reporters. He claimed Oswald yelled out “This is it. It’s all over with now”. However, Bentley indicated that Oswald stated this remark after he was arrested – and not before.

Whilst lone gunman kooks such as Vincent Bugliosi, Dale Myers and David Von Pein have used this statement to incriminate Oswald, there are many reasons to believe these were deliberate lies. None of the other arresting Officers, including Johnny Brewer, and theatre patrons John Gibson and George Applin, who were sitting near Oswald, claimed in their reports, affidavits or Warren commission testimony, that they heard Oswald say anything as he stood up and punched McDonald.  

Furthermore, McDonald claimed in both his arrest report (submitted on 3/12/63) and during his Warren commission testimony that Oswald yelled out “Well, it’s all over now” as he stood up. He also repeated this claim during a TV recreation of Oswald’s arrest. Now, there is no way in which McDonald could have confused “Well, it’s all over now” for “This is it” since they sound nothing alike. The only logical conclusion is that McDonald lied!

The following is from McDonald’s testimony:

Mr. Ball

What did you do then?

Mr. McDonald

After I was satisfied that these two men were not armed or had a weapon on them, I walked out of this row, up to the right centre aisle toward the suspect. And as I walked up there, just at a normal gait, I didn't look directly at him, but I kept my eye on him and any other persons. And to my left was another man and I believe a woman was with him. But he was further back than the suspect. And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now."

As far as Bentley’s insinuation that Oswald said “This is it. It’s all over with now” following his arrest - there is absolutely no corroboration for this from any other Officer. Bentley was therefore lying. Unless of course we are to believe the completely absurd notion that none of the other four arresting Officers heard it. As far as Hill is concerned, McDonald either told him that Oswald said “This is it” or Hill himself had concocted that expression to incriminate Oswald, with McDonald going along with it. Let me note that hill made the following comments during his testimony.

Mr. Belin.

Did you hear anyone else yell or make any other statements? First, I will ask you this. Did you hear the suspect make any statement of any kind?

Mr. Hill.

Not any distinguishable statement that I can specifically recall. Later in the course of trying to piece this thing together for a report, I believe it was McDonald and Hutson that stated, and we put it in the report that way, that the suspect yelled, "This is it."

Hill claims that it was McDonald and Hutson who stated Oswald yelled out “This is it”. Hutson, however, made no mention of this in his report, and when asked during his Warren commission testimony if he heard Oswald say anything as he stood up, he claimed he didn’t. Hill was therefore either badly mistaken, or simply lying.

It’s difficult to make a judgement on who was responsible for concocting this phony statement by Oswald. However, given that Hill was interviewed by reporters shortly following Oswald’s arrest (and the fact that his actions following the President’s assassination are highly suspect) I believe it was Hill who was responsible.

Following Oswald’s arrest inside the Texas theatre, he was placed into an unmarked Police car and taken to City hall. The Officers accompanying Oswald were: Bob Carroll (driver), Paul Bentley, Gerald Hill, Charles Walker, and K.E Lyons. Carroll and Lyons stated in their arrest reports that Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver into the theatre. Hill and Walker made the same claim during their Warren commission testimonies. Bentley also made this claim during his interview with WFAA –TV the day following the assassination. I discussed the issue of Oswald’s ownership of the revolver in this post.

According to Officers Gerald Hill and Charles Walker, Oswald allegedly made a further incriminating statement whilst en route to city hall. Below are the excerpts from their Warren commission testimonies - where they explain what Oswald allegedly said.

Mr. Belin.

Was he ever asked again where he lived, up to the time you got to the station?

Mr. Hill.

No; I don't believe so, because when Bentley got the identification out, we had two different addresses. We had two different names, and the comment was made, "I guess we are going to have to wait until we get to the station to find out who he actually is." After about the time Bentley reached in his pocket and got his billfold, the suspect made the statement, "I don't know why you are treating me like this. The only thing I have done is carry a pistol in a movie." Then there was a remark made something to the effect, "Yes, sir; you have done a lot more. You have killed a policeman." And then the suspect made a remark similar to "Well, you fry for that," or something to that effect.

Mr. Belin.

Something to what effect?

Mr. Hill.

Well, now, he either made the statement, "You only fry for that," or "You can fry for that," or a similar statement. Now the exact words of it, I don't recall.

Mr. Belin.

All right; then what was said?

Mr. Hill.

Some more questions were asked as to where he had been prior to going to the movie, which he did not answer. Some more questions were asked as to what was his true name, and in neither case did he ever answer them. He did make a comment, if I recall, about the handcuffs, about, "I don't see why you handcuffed me." And here again he repeated the statement, "The only crime I have committed was carrying a pistol in a movie."

From Walker’s testimony:

Mr. Belin.

All right, you got in the car and went down to the police station?

Mr. Walker.

As we were driving down there, yes; he said –

Mr. Belin.

Who was he?

Mr. Walker.

Oswald said. "What is this all about?" He was relating this all the time. He said, "I know my rights." That is what he was saying, "I know my rights." And we told him that the police officer, that he was under arrest because the police officer, he was suspected in the murder of a police officer. And he said, "Police officer been killed?" And nobody said nothing. He said, "I hear they burn for murder." And I said, "You might find out." And he said, "Well, they say it just takes a second to die." And that is all I recall. Now we talked some more going down, but that is the thing that I recall.

Mr. Belin.

Do you recall any other conversation that you had with him, or not?

Mr. Walker.

No; he was just denying it, and he was saying that all he did was carry a gun, and the reason he fought back in the theatre is, he knew he wasn't supposed to be carrying a gun, and he had never been to jail.

Mr. Belin.

Were you asked ever to make a report of any conversation you had with him?

Mr. Walker.

No; they called me on the phone a couple of days after, and some supervisor asked me, there had been a rumour got out that Oswald had said, "Well, I got me a President and a cop. I should have got me two more." Or something like that. But that conversation was never said, because I was with him from the time that he was arrested until the time the detectives took him over. I made a written report on the arrest about a week after it happened, and that is the only conversation I had with anyone.

Mr. Belin.

In that report you didn't put any conversation that Oswald had, did you?

Mr. Walker.

No; I didn't put any conversation. I just put the details of the arrest.

Mr. Belin.

Were you asked just to make a report on your arrest of Oswald?

Mr. Walker.

That is normal procedure, just what we call a "Dear Chief" letter. Just describe the arrest and other officers involved, and we never did put what conversation we had.

The statements made by Hill and Walker regarding what Oswald stated vary slightly, and is expected since the recollections of two people always differ to some degree. However, as with the claim that Oswald supposedly yelled out “This is it”, “Well, it’s all over now”, and “This is it. It’s all over now”, there is good reason to believe that both Hill and Walker were lying. For example, during Hill’s interviews by reporters, the only incriminating statement which he claimed that Oswald made was “This is it” and made no mention of what Oswald allegedly stated in the Police car en route to city hall.

Similarly, when Paul Bentley was interviewed on WFAA –TV concerning the arrest, he recalled Oswald stating he had carried a revolver into the theatre, and that Oswald refused to answer any questions asked about his address etc. Now, are we to honestly believe that Bentley (who was sitting to Oswald’s left in the car) somehow couldn’t recall hearing this incriminating statement? This is completely absurd – especially in light of the fact that Gerald Hill was sitting in the front middle seat, with Walker sitting to Oswald’s right, heard what they claimed Oswald purportedly said.

Let me also note that Walker claimed during his testimony that he didn’t write down any conversation he had with Oswald in his arrest report, because it wasn’t a requirement to do so. However, both Bob Carroll and K.E Lyons wrote in their reports that Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol into the Theatre. In fact, Carroll claimed in his report: “Oswald was belligerent and said very little”. Also, there was no mention of Oswald’s incriminating remarks in either Carroll’s or Lyons’ reports. Hence, Walker was by all likelihood lying.

Based on the above information, there is simply no reason to believe that Oswald made any of the incriminating remarks attributed to him by McDonald, Hill, Walker, and Bentley – and they were therefore lying! But if the above is not enough to convince you that the DPD were lying, then what follows concerning the Selective Service card bearing the name Alek James Hidell (allegedly discovered in Oswald’s wallet) hopefully will.

The JFK bashing continues

With the 50^th anniversary of President John F Kennedy’s assassination fast approaching, his character and legacy has once again come under fire. I am referring to the recent allegations of his affair with famed actress, Elizabeth Taylor, Bill O’Reilly’s new book, Killing Kennedy, and the recent “revelations” that the Kennedy brothers had been running a top secret CIA- Mafia plot against Fidel Castro, in 1963.

Honest to god, is anybody actually surprised to hear this sort of crap being dumped on us?

Let’s begin with Kennedy’s so-called affair with Elizabeth Taylor. The allegations were made in Taylor’s new biography, Elizabeth Taylor: There is nothing like a dame, written by Danforth Prince and Darwin Potter. According to the authors, Kennedy and Taylor had sex whilst skinny dipping in Kennedy’s swimming pool in 1948. But apparently they weren’t alone. The authors allege that actor, Robert Stack, was also involved in sexual intercourse with Kennedy and Taylor!

Yes ladies and gentlemen, you read that correctly. Not only did Kennedy have affairs with Marilyn Monroe, Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, Mimi Alford, but he also had a threesome with Elizabeth Taylor and Robert Stack. These are all quite kinky stories, but are any of them true? Well, we don’t know, now do we?

I don’t know about you, but whenever I hear one these rumours about Kennedy’s sexual relationships, I demand to see actually tangible proof. As far I am concerned, simply taking the word of Judith Exner, Mimi Alford, and a few authors such as Seymour Hersh, who have undoubtedly made a lot of money off these allegations, does not constitute tangible proof.

This brings me to Bill O’Reilly’s latest book, Killing Kennedy. Not surprisingly, O’Reilly’s book is nothing but a rabid defence of the Warren commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone murdered President Kennedy. However, O’ Reilly didn’t stop there. You see, like the many rabid Warren commission defenders before him, the big shot goes after Kennedy’s sex life as well. For those of you fortunate enough not to own a copy, I strongly recommend you read through Jim DiEugenio’s excellent review of that piece of trash of a book, here.

The final point I would like to address are the insinuations of CIA- mafia assassination plots against Fidel Castro sanctioned by the Kennedy brothers. But we’ve all heard it all before, haven’t we? From Gus Russo’s atrocious book, Live by the Sword, to Lamar Waldron’s and Tom Hartman’s utterly banal, Legacy of Secrecy and Ultimate Sacrifice.

Waldron’s fanciful C-Day invasion has been thoroughly ripped apart by Jim DiEugenio in his reviews of Waldron’s books, here and here. Whilst Waldron, Russo, and other JFK bashers continue to undermine his legacy with this garbage, they never once mention the secret back channel JFK had established with Fidel Castro. I am referring of course to the secret liaisons between Lisa Howard, William Atwood, and Jean Daniel with Castro on Kennedy’s behalf. The goal being to negotiate a détente between the United States and Cuba.

The most recent allegations were made in the so-called RFK papers, which outline a contract on Castro’s life using Mafia hit men – spearheaded by non-other than Robert Kennedy. Apparently the contract on Castro’s life was $100,000, with $20,000 for his brother Raul, and also $20,000 for the life of Argentine Marxist revolutionary, Che Guevara.

Of course the question is whether this is authentic information, or just more disinformation to chastise the Kennedy brothers. I honestly believe it is nothing but a pile of crap! None of President Kennedy’s closet advisors ever claimed that either he or his brother had any knowledge of any assassination attempts against Fidel Castro. In fact, when Lyman Kirkpatrick, the CIA inspector general, investigated the involvement of the Kennedy brothers in the assassination plots, he could find no evidence that either one of them had any knowledge of the plots!

Unfortunately, there are many delusional souls who actually believe that the Kennedy brothers were really the culprits behind the assassination attempts against Castro. For example, there are those who have made repulsive comments such as “The Kennedy’s were mad men”. Oh really? If JFK was a mad man, then why didn’t he attack Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis - instead of secretly negotiating with Nikita Khrushchev through his brother to bring the crisis to a peaceful end?

Honestly, where do these people come with such sickening crap? Also, just ask yourself, what kind of a mad man refuses to invade Cuba to prevent the Bay of Pigs invasion from failing? What kind of a mad man refuses on no less than, get this, 9 occasions to send combat troops into Vietnam to fight the communists? What kind of a mad man agrees to establish the Peace Corps to render aid and support to third world countries? What kind of a madman refuses to attack the Soviets during the Berlin crisis? What kind of a mad man signs the partial test ban treaty with the Soviets to limit nuclear testing?

These people really should purchase a copy of Jim Douglass’s seminal book, JFK and the unspeakable.

All of the allegations against the Kennedy brothers are nothing but pure horse crap. What will we hear next? JFK was a paedophile? Considering all the garbage that has been written about his character in the past, it would not surprise me in the least! However, no matter what derogatory claims are made against JFK, there will those of us, such as Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, who will continue to defend him and his legacy.