25-04-2014, 09:22 PM
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Had this wallet come from the jacket discovered behind the Texaco station, why wouldn't a DPD report simply say so?
A wallet discovered (where?) in or near a discarded (when?) jacket (whose?) found a few blocks (how far?) from a murder scene wouldn't have near the evidentiary force that a wallet discovered at the scene of the murder, or in the suspect's possession when arrested. It would require some additional circumstantial evidence to give it any probative value. Oswald's or not, the closer it is to the scene of the crime or to/on his person makes it more probative.
My scenario was a "for instance" merely to illuminate the idea that the different wallet stories might be different stories about the same wallet, changed as needed by law enforcement, not as a theory of how the wallet came into DPD's possession. Or how many wallets there were. Or how many Oswalds might be required in Dallas dropping wallets for there to be reports of 5 wallets or so.
I agree that much of the evidence is suspect and untrustworthy. However, in my mind, you can't jump straight from that point, to declaring that it has been forged in advance by conspirators. There appear to be four fundamental things on which we can rely: A wallet was found, which is currently resides in the Archives; television footage shows that wallet in police possession on the day of the assassination; it's not Tippet's wallet (because Tippet's widow still has his); and, there are wildly conflicting accounts from "normally credible witnesses" concerning the discovery of the wallet.
As I have said before, an "After Conspiracy," whose purpose was to pin the tail on Oswald, might be completely unrelated, in goals, methods, or participants, to a "Before Conspiracy." I don't believe that any halfway competent "Before" group would screw up their own frame job by planting multiple wallets in different locations.