Time for Truth

[Zeon Mason]

If Oswald was the Tippit shooter, then what reason to carry a revolver into the theater and KEEP that revolver on his person even as DPD entered the theater from all directions.

An LN might suggest that the reason was that Oswald was in a state of mind that was basically “”fight or flight”, from having just killed Tippit about 25 minutes earlier, so possibly thinking of a final shootout with cops if Oswald was trapped.

But Oswald is also supposed to be this cool and calculating man who shot JFK so it’s seems inconsistent he wasn’t able to calculate getting rid of incriminating evidence like the revolver and the 2 types of bullets, and NOT to leave shells at  ( and his wallet too??) at the Tippit scene.

Even if it could be proved that Oswald was a schizophrenic / bipolar mental case , the 1:15 DOA time stamp and Bowleys 1:10 watch time stamp place the  Tippit shooter having to be shooting Tippit at about 1:07 pm which pretty much exonerates Oswald being the shooter anyway.

From my CT perspective, and because of what appears to be an impossibility of Oswald able to even get to 10th and Patton by 1:07 pm, there are only a few  alternatives to consider imo:

1. Oswald went directly  to the theatre for no other reason than to just watch a movie. It’s uncertain if he would have carried a revolver or not on his person, but if he’s so unconcerned about the magnitude of the events that day to just casually be going to see a movie then he also possibly could have gone to Brewers store just to look at some shoes.  This kind of behavior , however, would suggest Oswald had an extremely unsympathetic attitude about the magnitude of the events that day.

2. Oswald went directly to the theater for a purpose other than just to see a movie. The reason most probable is to meet someone. The purpose of the meeting uncertain, but such scenario leads to the idea that Oswald was involved somehow  with either FBI or CIA as an operative so it would not be implausible he would carry a revolver as a standard defensive posture.

[John Iacoletti]

I didn't say anything about CE134.

Neither did I.

This is just an attempt to change the subject, move the goalposts, and shift the burden of proof.
"X is a possible" is a "truth statement," even if it's not a definite statement. Something is possible, or it is not. You are saying that it is....without giving us any reason to seriously consider it a possibility.

It is technically possible that a revolver suddenly appeared in Oswald's hand due to an utterly freak quantum entanglement event. Should we seriously consider this possibility? Of course not.

Should we seriously consider the possibility that Oswald brought the CE143 revolver into the theater without any reason to seriously consider it?  Of course not.

Why the double standard?

[Mitch Todd]

MT: I didn't rewrite what Brewer said. It's all verbatim from his testimony. Could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?

Stringing together pieces of phrases from different statements made at different times is rewriting

The only source I used was Brewer's WC testimony. Not "different statements made at different times." Again, could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?

JI: What orifice did you pull that out of? The arrest report says murder.

MT: The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald.

Of course an arrest report is written after an arrest. What’s your point? And I made no argument regarding their exact intentions before the scuffle.

I said it explicitly:  "The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald."

MT: Who said that the gun didn't leave Oswald's waistband?

McDonald did. In his report to Curry:

“With his right hand, he reached to his waist and both of our hands were on a pistol that was stuck in his belt under his shirt. he both fell into the seats struggling for the pistol. At this time I yelled, "I've got him." Three uniformed officers came to my aid immediately. One on the suspect's left, one to the rear in the row behind and one to the front in the row directly in front of the suspect and I. I managed to get my right hand on the pistol over the suspect's hand. I could feel his hand on the trigger. I then got a secure grip on the butt of the pistol. I jerked the pistol and as it was clearing the suspect's clothing and grip I heard the snap of the hammer and the pistol crossed over my left cheek, causing a four inch scratch.”

Do you not understand that "as it was clearing the suspect's clothing" means that it left Oswald's waistband?

No, McDonald jerked the pistol causing it to come out.

That's not quite what he actually said. He said he "jerked the pistol" but didn't actually say that he "jerked it out" (I'll refrain from any more double entendre than necessary here). Anyone who has tried to remove a tree stump knows that jerking something isn't necessarily going to cause it to move much, if at all. And McDonald's account doesn't preclude Oswald pulling the gun out of his own accord. McDonald notes that Oswald already had his hand around the gun, with his finger on the trigger. There's only one reason to do that, and it involves pulling a gun. The other witnesses reported seeing the gun in Oswald's hand, but not in McDonald's hand.

Again, Applin saw a gun in the hand of somebody wearing a short sleeved shirt. Oswald wasn’t.

Applin explicitly identified Oswald as the guy in short sleeves holding the gun. You keep leaving that part out for some strange reason. And the cops weren't wearing short sleeve shirts, either.

Many hands were on the gun at some point during the scuffle. It doesn’t just follow that holding a gun means you pulled it out.

I only see Oswald and McDonald with their hands on it in the scrum, with Bob Carrol pulling it out of the fight for good. Three guys does not make for "many" hands.

MT:  Oswald was wearing a shirt that looked to be a size or two too large for him, which could allow the cuff to be pulled back up the arm. Plus it had a big hole in the right elbow. Either could account for Applin seeing what appeared to him to be a short sleeve.

Wow, that wins the prize for lamest LN excuse. If you look at photos of the arrest shirt, you can see that the hole is not “big”. If you look at the photos of Oswald being dragged out of the theater, you can see that his sleeves are not rolled up.

First off, I didn't say "rolled up," I said "pushed up." Sleeves can and do get pushed and pulled up the arm during highly physical personal interactions, like fights. And after the fight is over, and the force pushing the cuff up the arm abates, the sleeve as a tendency to retreat to it's original position all on it's own.

That being said, Applin explicitly named Oswald as the owner of the short-sleeved arm. Given that, all that's left would be to explain why Applin thought Oswald had a short sleeve shirt on. It might just take is a glimpse of bare forearm or elbow in the dynamic whirl of melee.

MT: The Federal exclusionary rule was codified by Supreme Court in the the Weeks decision of 1914
I made no reference to the exclusionary rule. It’s not even relevant to the argument.

The exclusionary rule springs directly from the question of, was a search or arrest proper under the 4th amendment? The two are joined at the hip.

Generally allowed by whom, and says who?

You didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia article, did you? If you did, you'd find things like:

"All major American police forces routinely employed the stop-and-frisk practice, and it was historically viewed as a 'low visibility' police procedure and was 'largely ignored by commentators and dealt with ambiguously by most courts.'" The quotes are from Wayne LaFavres' book "Search and Siezure" and Frank Remington's 1960 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality article on the subject. Some more Remington quotes: 

"There is no doubt that it is common police practice to stop and question suspects as to whom there are no sufficient grounds for arrest."

"If the right to stop and question a suspect is recognized, then it follows that the officer ought to be allowed to frisk, under some circumstances at least, to insure that the suspect is not possessed of a dangerous weapon which would put the safety of the officer in peril. Certainly it is current practice to frisk some suspects as to whom there are not sufficient grounds for arrest."

"Usually courts which have recognized a privilege to stop and question a suspect have also recognized the right of the officer to frisk the suspect if the officer has reason to believe him dangerous. This is specifically provided for in the Uniform Arrest Act."

And Wikipedia provides a brief synopsis of Terry's appeals through the court system:

"Terry's lawyer argued that the frisk had been a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the pistol that McFadden had discovered during the frisk should therefore be excluded from evidence under the exclusionary rule. The trial judge denied his motion on the basis that the stop-and-frisk was generally presumed legal, and Terry was convicted. He appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction, and he then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which dismissed his appeal."

MT: In 1961, this all changed when the Supremes decided in Mapp v Ohio that the Federal exclusionary rule extended into the state and local jurisdictions via the 14th amendment. This led to a flood of exclusionary rule cases entering the federal appellate courts that would have previously stopped at the state supreme court level. The Miranda case was the most famous of these. Terry v Ohio was another. In the Terry case, the Supreme Court essentially left the bar where the state courts had it.

Cite any such Texas adjudication prior to 1963. Particularly one that articulates the “reasonable suspicion” standard the Supreme Court imposed with Terry.

You're the person who originally asserted that "the police overstepped." It's up to you to show that they did, in the eyes of the law. Anything else is just another of your attempts to shift the burden of proof. 

The 4th amendment says “probable cause”.

Yes, and what would constitute "probable cause?" I mean, not by your own definition, but by one generally accepted by the courts.

P.S. there was no reasonable suspicion by the Terry standard anyway that the man Brewer pointed out had committed a crime or was armed.

Thus spake the renowned legal scholar, John Iacoletti. Oh, wait, who am I kidding? It's just another unsupported assertion. Thus, LOL. LOL indeed.

[Mitch Todd]

What I said is “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." It’s known as Hitchens’ Razor, after Christoper Hitchens who made the statement.

Let's compare, shall we?

I said that you said, "that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You said that you said "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

Maybe it's just me, but these two statements carry exactly the same meaning despite the difference in exact wording. So why did you respond to the first statement with "I never said 'that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'" when this statement means exactly the same thing as your own preferred version? Do you even know?

There is a fundamental difference between an assertion of a fact and a speculative possibility.

Well, there certainly is a difference of degree here. But only of degree. A possibility may only be a possibility, but there still needs to be reason to consider a possibility to actually be a possibility.  Unless, of course, your goal is not a raise possibilities, but to argue via innuendo what you cannot do with evidence. 

When somebody claims something to be a fact without any substantiation, all it deserves is a LOL. See Hitchens’ Razor. I don’t just LOL as things stated as opinions, speculations, or possibilities.

You mean, like when you make unsubstantiated statements like "If he had really pulled out a gun, they would have shot him?" we can LOL you? (BTW, LOL).

To be honest, I don't have a problem with pointing out an unsupported assertion as it's spat out. You can even be cheeky, if you're clever enough. But, the "LOL" thing is juvenile, unoriginal, and the sort of thing I'd expect from some kid who grew up getting ridiculed and bullied and wants nothing more than to pretend to follow in the footsteps of his tormentors. That's not much to aspire to. I'd prefer the practice was banned here (along with the useless interminable accusations that so-and-so is really 'Roger' or 'Howard Gee' or whoever), but the Mod seems to prefer everyone playing on a wide pitch. 

Of course, Hitch would respond (when necessary) using elegance, wit, and something made with vodka. BTW, I'm fully aware of Mr Hitchens and his shaving habits.

If you’re going to try to compare me to Beavis and Butthead, at least try to get their ages right.

The exact ages of Beavis and Butthead aren't important. Their behavior is. That's the point.

And you don’t speak for “everyone”.

I never claimed to. I said that everyone can see your behavior.

What age moron are you acting like with your belligerence?

More sour grapes from you, Mr Iacoletti. I'm not being belligerent. I'm treating you as you treat others. If you see that as morony or belligerence, then maybe you should spend some thoughtful time studying a mirror.

[Zeon Mason]

Were Oswald’s long sleeves buttoned or unbuttoned at time the wrestle match waist band event starts.

If buttoned it’s low probability the sleeves were pushed up by the wrestle match.

[John Iacoletti]

The only source I used was Brewer's WC testimony. Not "different statements made at different times." Again, could you at least try to accuse me of something related so something I've actually done, instead of just making it up as you go along?

Different parts of his testimony are different statements made at different times. Stringing parts of sentences together to invent continuous statements that he never actually made is dishonest.

I said it explicitly:  "The arrest report was written after the fact, and is therefore cannot be guaranteed to represent the DPDs exact intentions before Oswald's little scuffle with McDonald."

Then your point is irrelevant, because I said nothing about DPD’s intentions before the struggle.

Do you not understand that "as it was clearing the suspect's clothing" means that it left Oswald's waistband?

Yes. Do you not understand “I jerked the pistol and”?

That's not quite what he actually said. He said he "jerked the pistol" but didn't actually say that he "jerked it out" (I'll refrain from any more double entendre than necessary here). Anyone who has tried to remove a tree stump knows that jerking something isn't necessarily going to cause it to move much, if at all. And McDonald's account doesn't preclude Oswald pulling the gun out of his own accord.

How quickly you reverted from “Oswald pulled a gun out” to “does not preclude”.
 

Applin explicitly identified Oswald as the guy in short sleeves holding the gun. You keep leaving that part out for some strange reason.

Let’s look at what Applin actually testified, shall we?

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.

He guessed it was Oswald because he had on a short-sleeved shirt. He didn’t give any other reason beyond this “one reason”, but your attempt to spin this as a positive identification (and what’s more, evidence that Oswald pulled a gun) is once again, highly dishonest.

I only see Oswald and McDonald with their hands on it in the scrum, with Bob Carrol pulling it out of the fight for good. Three guys does not make for "many" hands.

You see? You see? That’s quite a trick, unless you were there or have video of the event. It was officer C.T. Walker who mentioned all the hands:

“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.”

The exclusionary rule springs directly from the question of, was a search or arrest proper under the 4th amendment? The two are joined at the hip.

The exclusionary rule is what motivates police to respect the 4th amendment. The right itself is not defined by it. Nor does it depend on it for its existence.

You didn't even bother to read the Wikipedia article, did you? If you did, you'd find things like:

So the answer to my “says who” question is vague claims in Wikipedia. Thanks.

"If the right to stop and question a suspect is recognized, then it follows that the officer ought to be allowed to frisk, under some circumstances at least, to insure that the suspect is not possessed of a dangerous weapon which would put the safety of the officer in peril. Certainly it is current practice to frisk some suspects as to whom there are not sufficient grounds for arrest."

"Usually courts which have recognized a privilege to stop and question a suspect have also recognized the right of the officer to frisk the suspect if the officer has reason to believe him dangerous. This is specifically provided for in the Uniform Arrest Act."
[

Note all the qualifiers. “Ought to be”. “Some circumstances”. “Some suspects”. “Usually”. “If the officer has reason to believe”.

You're the person who originally asserted that "the police overstepped." It's up to you to show that they did, in the eyes of the law. Anything else is just another of your attempts to shift the burden of proof. 

My evidence is a plain reading of the 4th amendment. This has entered the realm of a philosophical argument. You’re arguing that if the police “commonly” do something (whatever that means) that goes against the constitution, then it’s legal until the Supreme Court says it’s not. I’m arguing that it’s illegal until the Supreme Court says it’s permitted. The Supreme Court doesn’t grant certiorari unless there is a constitutional dispute to be settled.

Quoting from the dissent in Terry v. Ohio:

"In other words, police officers up to today have been permitted to effect arrests or searches without warrants only when the facts within their personal knowledge would satisfy the constitutional standard of probable cause. At the time of their "seizure" without a warrant, they must possess facts concerning the person arrested that would have satisfied a magistrate that "probable cause" was indeed present."

This justice, at least, disagrees with you that it was previously permissible merely because police did it.

Yes, and what would constitute "probable cause?" I mean, not by your own definition, but by one generally accepted by the courts.

Quoting from https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/probable-cause.html;

"Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances known by the police officer [emphasis mine] would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit a criminal offense."

"Police must base probable cause on objective facts; it cannot be based upon a hunch."

"Probable cause to search exists when facts and circumstances known to the law enforcement officer [emphasis mine] provide the basis for a reasonable person to believe that they committed a crime at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime exists at the location."

There were no facts and circumstances known to any law enforcement officer at the time the Texas Theater was raided that Oswald or anybody else in the theater had committed a violent crime or was likely to be dangerous.

Thus spake the renowned legal scholar, John Iacoletti. Oh, wait, who am I kidding? It's just another unsupported assertion. Thus, LOL. LOL indeed.

So says the "legal scholar" who cites Wikipedia.  LOL.

Even though the concept of a Terry frisk had not yet been invented in 1963, let's look at the standard and apply it to Brewer, Oswald, and the two unidentified theater patrons who got frisked.

Quoting from the majority opinion in Terry v. Ohio:

"Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 174-176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U. S. 642, 645 (1878). [Footnote 23] And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra.
IV"

Now let's look at the circumstances.  The police received a telephone call from Julia Postal that said, as recounted by Postal in her testimony:

"So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you,""

Keeping in mind, the description that was broadcast over police radio:

"Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). "

There is literally nothing in common between the two descriptions.  In addition to that, no police officer observed any crime or any suspicious behavior.  Neither Postal or Brewer saw any criminal activity (apart from -- arguably -- theft of service), or saw a weapon of any kind.  So what were the "specific reasonable inferences", beyond a hunch, that the man that Brewer pointed out or anybody else in the theater had been involved in a crime for which he should be detained, and, considered potentially armed and dangerous?  There are none.  What are the facts and circumstances known to the law enforcement officer that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Oswald committed the crime of murder, justifying the murder arrest?  There are none.

The police overstepped.

[John Iacoletti]

Let's compare, shall we?

I said that you said, "that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You said that you said "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

Maybe it's just me, but these two statements carry exactly the same meaning despite the difference in exact wording.

So says the guy who tried to make a distinction between rolled up sleeves and pushed up sleeves.

So why did you respond to the first statement with "I never said 'that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'" when this statement means exactly the same thing as your own preferred version? Do you even know?

Because I don't agree that they mean exactly the same thing.  Asserting something is stating it as fact.  Positing is suggesting something as a possibility.

Well, there certainly is a difference of degree here. But only of degree. A possibility may only be a possibility, but there still needs to be reason to consider a possibility to actually be a possibility.  Unless, of course, your goal is not a raise possibilities, but to argue via innuendo what you cannot do with evidence. 

You mean like your argument that Oswald's sleeves could have been "pushed up", but only when Applin saw the gun?

To be honest, I don't have a problem with pointing out an unsupported assertion as it's spat out. You can even be cheeky, if you're clever enough. But, the "LOL" thing is juvenile, unoriginal, and the sort of thing I'd expect from some kid who grew up getting ridiculed and bullied and wants nothing more than to pretend to follow in the footsteps of his tormentors. That's not much to aspire to. I'd prefer the practice was banned here (along with the useless interminable accusations that so-and-so is really 'Roger' or 'Howard Gee' or whoever), but the Mod seems to prefer everyone playing on a wide pitch. 

Thanks for sharing.  I'll give your preferences all the consideration that they deserve.  On the other hand, seeing how much a little "LOL" gets under your skin is more motivation to keep doing it, because you can't discuss anything without behaving like a belligerent a$$h0le.

Of course, Hitch would respond (when necessary) using elegance, wit, and something made with vodka. BTW, I'm fully aware of Mr Hitchens and his shaving habits.

Good, then you'll avoid the LOLs by refraining from making assertions without evidence.  By the way, Hitch drank scotch.

The exact ages of Beavis and Butthead aren't important. Their behavior is. That's the point.

The real point is that the guy who thinks that personally demeaning remarks somehow make for a more convincing argument shouldn't be whining about juvenile behavior.  Claming to be responding in kind is patently ridiculous.  You do that to everybody who dares to disagree with your edicts, rather than just presenting a better argument and letting that speak for itself.