Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Rob Caprio]

Here is more background on the arrest of LHO.

***************************************

Anyone that has followed this case or took the time to learn this case knows that the Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was wearing Commission Exhibit (CE) 150 when he was arrested.  They also know this is a LONG-SLEEVE shirt.  Keep that in mind.

The WC also claimed when LHO was arrested at the Texas Theater he had a revolver on him and that he tried to use it on a cop to avoid being arrested.  This alleged revolver was entered into evidence as CE 143.  The problem for the WC was the same problem they had for the rifle LHO allegedly owned -- they had NO evidence to show he ordered that specific weapon and received it at his Dallas P.O. Box.  IOW's, they had NO way to LINK that pistol to LHO.

Let's get back to the claim about LHO pulling out the pistol in the theater.  One witness there, George Applin (he would later tell us in an interview that Jack Ruby was in the theater too), described what he saw this way.

********************************************

Mr. BALL - Did you see a gun?

Mr. APPLIN - Well, the gun didn't come into view until after about four or five officers were there.

Mr. BALL - Then did you see a gun?

Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; but only--there was one gun. The pistol. It came into view before any of the other officers got there.

Mr. BALL - That is what I mean. What do you say happened about that? Who pulled a gun?

Mr. APPLIN - Well, anyhow, the officer was facing this way [indicating] and Oswald was facing this way [indicating]. And then the gun was pointed out that way [indicating].

Mr. BALL - Wait a minute. I can't follow you when you say it was "this way," sir. You told me that this officer asked Oswald to stand up?

Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir

Mr. BALL - Did he stand up?

Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. BALL - Then did he put his hand some place on Oswald?

Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; along about

Mr. BALL - Where?

Mr. APPLIN - I guess about his hips.

Mr. BALL - Then what did Oswald do?

Mr. APPLIN - He took a right-hand swing at him.

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 have seen, the WC claimed LHO was wearing a LONG-SLEEVED shirt, so how could it be LHO pulling the gun when Applin said the man was wearing a short-sleeved shirt?

His comment about the gun not coming out until AFTER the four of five cops coming is interesting too, as why would LHO wait so long?  Could it be one of these cops was the one to pull a pistol?

Let's look at Johnny Brewer's testimony now.

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.

How do we rectify this with what Applin saw?  We don't. Why didn't they ask him what type of shirt the person with the gun had on? I am NOT out to defend LHO as the LNers claim, I am out for the truth.  Given the FACT Brewer was so supposedly instrumental in getting the cops there we have to take his comments with a grain of salt with NO corroboration in my mind.  He had a VESTED interest in making LHO sound guilty.

Look at this conflicting testimony here.

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.

Wow.  Where to begin here?  First of all, IF he did NOT know where the gun came from how can he be so certain it was LHO that drew it? Furthermore, just because someone yells "He's got a gun" does NOT mean he does.  How many times have cops shot a suspect thinking they had a gun when NO gun was ever found on them? This cry could have been to set-up of the shooting of LHO for all we know.

He mentions LHO was fighting the cops a couple of times, but in the comments below he will say something TOTALLY DIFFERENT.  Finally, we come to the statement about someone saying "Kill the President, will you."  How in the world could they know this at this early stage UNLESS they knew he would be the patsy for the crime?  Remember, he was ARRESTED for the murder of JDT at this point, NOT the killing of JFK.

Here is Brewer's conflicting comment.

Mr. BELIN - Was he fighting back at that time?

Mr. BREWER - Yes; he was fighting back.

Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?

Mr. BREWER - Well, just in a short time they put the handcuffs on him and they took him out.

Mr. BELIN - Did you see police officers hit him after they got the handcuffs on him?

Mr. BREWER - No; I didn't see them.

Mr. BELIN - Did you see any police officer hit Oswald after Oswald stopped fighting?

Mr. BREWER - No.

Mr. BELIN - Did you hear Oswald say anything?

Mr. BREWER - As they were taking him out, he stopped and turned around and hollered, "I am not resisting arrest," about twice. "I am not resisting arrest." And they took him on outside.

Does this make any sense to anyone reading this? Why would LHO fight like a madman supposedly in the theater where he could have been shot quite easily, but then say after he was subdued and handcuffed "I'm NOT resisting arrest"?  This seems BACKWARDS to me, how about you?

Look at this interesting comment.

Mr. BELIN - Then what happened?

Mr. BREWER - Well, then, the police officers and plainclothesmen, whoever they were, got everybody that was in the theatre and set them aside, and another officer was taking their names and addresses of all the people that were in the theatre.

This is PROPER police procedure, but we are led to believe NO one did this for one of the main witnesses in the WC's arsenal -- Howard Brennan!  NOT one cop, Secret Service (SS) Agent or FBI Agent could be found to say they were the one that took the description he allegedly gave at 12:45 P.M.!  NOT one cop, SS Agent or FBI Agent had his name in their book like we see happening at the theater.  Why not?

Why was this alleged description (minus the clothing) used to arrest LHO for the KILLING OF JDT when it went out as the for being the shooter of JFK?

Once again we see a major discrepancy in what the WC claimed and what it could show, therefore, their conclusion is sunk again.

[Rob Caprio]

Good grief.  The DPD received a call indicating that a man in the vicinity of a murder was acting suspiciously.  They had no choice but to pursue this lead and act as though the subject might be their murder suspect.  An armed and dangerous person.  He could very well have turned out NOT to be the person.  But they had to respond as though he could be for their own safety.  When approached Oswald put up a fight.  The DPD responded to the guy seen running in the library in the exact same manner.  They approached him as a potential murder suspect.  He was able to explain himself, however, and was let go.  He did not punch a police officer and attempt to shoot him.   Answer the one question that your dishonest sidekick will not.  Are you suggesting that Brewer was playing some role in a plot to frame Oswald?

Good grief. When and where did he call the police? Be specific and use the evidence.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Again, our dishonest contrarian who responds to every post has neglected to answer the basic question.  If dishonest John is not implying that Brewer was part of some plot relating to Oswald, why does it matter whether Brewer found Oswald suspicious?  If the allegation is simply that Brewer had no reasonable basis to conclude that Oswald was acting suspiciously, but was just overly paranoid, then so what?  It doesn't appear to have any relevance whatsoever.   It's only in the "strawman" context that Brewer's motivation has any significance.  Just one of an increasing number of dishonest lines of arguments.  Suggesting that Brewer had no legitimate basis to find Oswald suspicious, but then denying that any nefarious intent is implied.  How about just spelling it out?  Is there any reason to believe that Brewer's actions were motivated by any other reason than that he found Oswald's conduct suspicious -whether that suspicion was reasonable or not in your subjective opinion?  Are you suggesting that Brewer's motivation was based on something other than finding Oswald suspicious?

And to again point to the obvious: this questioning of motive on Brewer's part comes from the very same person who insists we can only look at Oswald's behavior in isolation, stripped of any context and that to ascribe criminal motive or intent to them is not only wrong but rejected with the child like "LOL" response.

Oswald's acts are judged in isolation - "He just left Marina money", "He just took a bus", "He just took a cab", "He just went to a movie" - while Brewer's (and other's ) every move is questioned as having nefarious purposes or motive.

[Rob Caprio]

And to again point to the obvious: this questioning of motive on Brewer's part comes from the very same person who insists we can only look at Oswald's behavior in isolation, stripped of any context and that to ascribe criminal motive or intent to them is not only wrong but rejected with the child like "LOL" response.

Oswald's acts are judged in isolation - "He just left Marina money", "He just took a bus", "He just took a cab", "He just went to a movie" - while Brewer's (and other's ) every move is viewed as having nefarious purposes or motive.

Why not show that Brewer mattered? When and where did he call the police? Be specific and use the evidence.

[Richard Smith]

Good grief. When and where did he call the police? Be specific and use the evidence.

LOL. No one ever said Brewer called the police.  I said the police received a call reporting a suspicious person.  The record confirms that Postal called the DPD to report a suspicious person.  Now that your lame distraction has failed, are you alleging that Brewer's actions were motivated by his being a conspirator in a plot to frame Oswald?  That appears to be what you are clearly implying, but if not just say that you believe Brewer was just acting unreasonably in your kooky subjective opinion but there is no sinister conclusion to be drawn from this.  I don't see why it is so difficult to own your claim.

[Richard Smith]

And to again point to the obvious: this questioning of motive on Brewer's part comes from the very same person who insists we can only look at Oswald's behavior in isolation, stripped of any context and that to ascribe criminal motive or intent to them is not only wrong but rejected with the child like "LOL" response.

Oswald's acts are judged in isolation - "He just left Marina money", "He just took a bus", "He just took a cab", "He just went to a movie" - while Brewer's (and other's ) every move is viewed as having nefarious purposes or motive.

Yes, it's the same old broken, dishonest tune.  Dishonest John wants to eat his cake and have it too.  Going on and on suggesting that Brewer had no legitimate basis to find Oswald's conduct suspicious, but then denying that he is implying that there is something nefarious about this.  It's laughable. 

[Rob Caprio]

LOL. No one ever said Brewer called the police.  I said the police received a call reporting a suspicious person.  The record confirms that Postal called the DPD to report a suspicious person.  Now that your lame distraction has failed, are you alleging that Brewer's actions were motivated by his being a conspirator in a plot to frame Oswald?  That appears to be what you are clearly implying, but if not just say that you believe Brewer was just acting unreasonably in your kooky subjective opinion but there is no sinister conclusion to be drawn from this.  I don't see why it is so difficult to own your claim.

Who made the call? Be specific and use the evidence.