Time for Truth

[Alan Ford]

At the heart of Mr. Brewer's story is his claim that his suspicions about this man, and his sense of urgency about how serious this situation might be, are centered on a radio broadcast he has heard giving a description of the man who had shot an officer in Oak Cliff.

OK, let's take a huge leap of faith and pretend he can have actually heard such a broadcast by ~1:30pm.

So he goes down to the Texas Theatre and speaks with Mrs. Postal and Mr. Burroughs. He refuses to let up. He prevails upon Mrs. Postal to call the police, impressing upon her the potential importance of this man he believes is in the cinema: 'There's been an officer shot in Oak Cliff. That's what all the police activity must be about. I think this guy might be the one they're looking for. He fits the description.'

Except........... I made that last bit up. Mr. Brewer doesn't say anything like that. At all. In fact, in all his time down at the Texas Theatre, right up to the arrival of the police, he never even mentions the shooting of the policeman he's heard about. Mrs. Postal doesn't learn about that shooting until the police arrive--------and is greatly shocked when a police officer informs her.

Bizarre!

[Richard Smith]

At the heart of Mr. Brewer's story is his claim that his suspicions about this man, and his sense of urgency about how serious this situation might be, are centered on a radio broadcast he has heard giving a description of the man who had shot an officer in Oak Cliff.

OK, let's take a huge leap of faith and pretend he can have actually heard such a broadcast by ~1:30pm.

So he goes down to the Texas Theatre and speaks with Mrs. Postal and Mr. Burroughs. He refuses to let up. He prevails upon Mrs. Postal to call the police, impressing upon her the potential importance of this man he believes is in the cinema: 'There's been an officer shot in Oak Cliff. That's what all the police activity must be about. I think this guy might be the one they're looking for. He fits the description.'

Except........... I made that last bit up. Mr. Brewer doesn't say anything like that. At all. In fact, in all his time down at the Texas Theatre, right up to the arrival of the police, he never even mentions the shooting of the policeman he's heard about. Mrs. Postal doesn't learn about that shooting until the police arrive--------and is greatly shocked when a police officer informs her.

Bizarre!

Are you claiming that Brewer was part of a plot to frame Oswald?  If not, why do his motivations matter?

[John Iacoletti]

"It’s no less plausible than the evidence-less official claim about the revolver"

LOL

Another assertion delivered without any supporting evidence.

You don't know how to play by your own rules, do you?

Obviously you don’t know what an assertion is.

[John Iacoletti]

"I had seen him some place before" - what's vague about that?

You don’t think “some place before” is vague?

Brewer is listening to the radio about the shooting of JFK. There is an announcement that there has been a shooting in Oak Cliff, in the very area Brewer is located.

Except there’s no evidence that this announcement ever happened.

[John Iacoletti]

But a search required probable cause too.

I'm not sure why you keep going on about probable cause.
It was a manhunt for a cop-killer. A posse marauding around Oak Cliff intent on catching him.
Probable cause was out of the window. It had nothing to do with the search that preceded Oswald's arrest.
Where was the probable cause for marching the people out of the library with their hands in the air at the end of a shotgun?
Where was the probable cause for pulling a gun on Brewer when he opened the door?
Where was the probable cause for searching the two people at the front of the cinema?

There wasn’t any. Therein lies the problem. What they were doing required a warrant or probable cause. Being on a “manhunt for a cop killer” doesn’t change that.

There was no probable cause, but this doesn't mean the treatment Oswald got was any different from what other people were getting.

So what? Is that supposed to justify what the cops did?

It's not like police procedure was being followed elsewhere but when it came to Oswald all bets were off.
And it must be remembered that when Postal called the police she kept reiterating her belief that the man who had ducked into the cinema was on the run from the police.

Which of course she would have no way of knowing.

As over-the-top and illegal as the police response was, there is actually nothing suspicious about it. It was a mob with badges.

Police who don’t worry about following rules are going to worry about whether evidence is legitimate either. You can’t just say you can otherwise trust them not to be an illegal mob in every other aspect.

[Dan O'meara]

You don’t think “some place before” is vague?

What is not vague is that fact he recognised the man.
That's what's important here.
Not where he recognised him from or when it was.
He recognised the man outside his store and he recognised the man in the cinema as the same man.
That man was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Brewer's recognition of Oswald [not that he knew him as Oswald at the time], his recognition of him outside his store and his recognition of him inside the cinema is incredibly strong evidence that the man who ducked into Brewer's store was Oswald.
It is Brewer's recognition of this man that is important and that Brewer did recognise this man is not vague at all.
Where it was he recognised him from is irrelevant.
That said, Brewer did finally recognise him as a past customer which was then confirmed by the discovery of a pair of shoes from that very shop in Oswald's possession.

Except there’s no evidence that this announcement ever happened.

Is there evidence it didn't happen?

[Dan O'meara]

There wasn’t any. Therein lies the problem. What they were doing required a warrant or probable cause. Being on a “manhunt for a cop killer” doesn’t change that.

So what? Is that supposed to justify what the cops did?

Which of course she would have no way of knowing.

Police who don’t worry about following rules are going to worry about whether evidence is legitimate either. You can’t just say you can otherwise trust them not to be an illegal mob in every other aspect.

There has been no justification of any police actions in anything I written.
I totally agree the police were acting unlawfully and it would have been interesting to see how that would have played out in a trial.
The point I was making is that the way the police acted had nothing to do with Oswald. Some researchers like to make a big deal about how the police descended on the Texas Theater en masse, as if it suggests something suspicious.
But it doesn't.
Oswald was not the only person being treated unlawfully that day.

Which of course she would have no way of knowing.

Brewer told her about this suspicious acting man who was ducking into doorways avoiding the police.
That's how she knew about it.
But it doesn't matter if that's the case or not, the point I was making was that, whether she actually saw it or not, Postal was convinced this man was avoiding the police and she made that clear when she called them.
The dispatcher didn't know where she was getting her information from. All the dispatcher heard was this women repeating that a man who was conspicuously avoiding the police had entered the Texas Theater. There was a man-hunt for a cop killer going on at that exact moment. That the dispatcher put the call out for a suspect in the Texas Theater is in no way suspicious.
And that the posse of officers marauding Oak Cliff reacted like they did is, unfortunately, not surprising.

Police who don’t worry about following rules are going to worry about whether evidence is legitimate either.

Again, I totally agree.
The treatment of evidence in this case is appalling.
The profound incompetence on display is jaw-dropping.
That corrupt practices were rife can hardly be doubted.