First off, I'm not asking this to provoke a fight. I'm just curious as to what some think about Oswald going to the movies, after the President was shot at, from the building he worked in. Some of the TSBD employees left after the shooting, but he was the only one not to return. He went home got his revolver and then went to the movies. Just seems like an odd thing to do, after something as historical as the president getting shot at, happened in front of where he worked.
First off, I'm not asking this to provoke a fight. I'm just curious as to what some think about Oswald going to the movies, after the President was shot at, from the building he worked in. Some of the TSBD employees left after the shooting, but he was the only one not to return. He went home got his revolver and then went to the movies. Just seems like an odd thing to do, after something as historical as the president getting shot at, happened in front of where he worked.
Finally, you're asking a question and a good one at that. I've always wondered about that. It's a conundrum for sure, but then so is him going to a middle of nowhere place like 10th street. What in the world was he doing there, walking along with no obvious place to go, when he could have been on a bus out of town?
Finally, you're asking a question and a good one at that. I've always wondered about that. It's a conundrum for sure, but then so is him going to a middle of nowhere place like 10th street. What in the world was he doing there, walking along with no obvious place to go, when he could have been on a bus out of town?
He wasn't the only one not to return. Is there any evidence that shows he got "his" revolver?
He wasn't the only one not to return. Is there any evidence that shows he got "his" revolver?
He didn't go to the movies. Why did he go into the Texas theater? All you'll get is speculation.
On the night before, Oswald had gone to visit his wife in an attempt to restore their relationship. He was fond of his child and had another one coming. Marina rejected the rapprochement. For most people this would have left them emotionally distressed, what appeared to be final breakdown and not seeing his children. I cannot speak to Oswald actual frame of mind but the idea of hanging around work with no work to do for most people with that emotional situation from the night before. Going to the movies to escape how crap he was feeling would for most people make sense.
Thanks for your reply Anthony. Just so you know, his second child had already been born.
Thanks for your reply Anthony. Just so you know, his second child had already been born.
First off, I'm not asking this to provoke a fight. I'm just curious as to what some think about Oswald going to the movies, after the President was shot at, from the building he worked in. Some of the TSBD employees left after the shooting, but he was the only one not to return.
He went home got his revolver
and then went to the movies. Just seems like an odd thing to do, after something as historical as the president getting shot at, happened in front of where he worked.
Finally, you're asking a question and a good one at that. I've always wondered about that. It's a conundrum for sure, but then so is him going to a middle of nowhere place like 10th street. What in the world was he doing there, walking along with no obvious place to go, when he could have been on a bus out of town?
And that is a good question as well Martin. It just has seemed really odd, his actions. But then Ruby robbed us of ever knowing the answer.
He wasn't the only one not to return. Is there any evidence that shows he got "his" revolver?
When Lee went to work at the TSBD by bus, where was his usual bus stop?
What are you implying Joe?
Did Mr Truly know where Charles Givens was?
First off, I'm not asking this to provoke a fight. I'm just curious as to what some think about Oswald going to the movies, after the President was shot at, from the building he worked in. Some of the TSBD employees left after the shooting, but he was the only one not to return. He went home got his revolver and then went to the movies. Just seems like an odd thing to do, after something as historical as the president getting shot at, happened in front of where he worked.
To Mr Truly, at that immediate time post assassination - Givens could have been the actual assassin or a co conspirator.
. . .
Givens was missing from the line up as well.
. . .
Why did Mr Truly report only Lee "missing"?
First off, I'm not asking this to provoke a fight. I'm just curious as to what some think about Oswald going to the movies, after the President was shot at,
You want "thoughts" (i.e. speculation) so you can discuss that instead of actually citing the evidence.
Finally, you're asking a question and a good one at that. I've always wondered about that. It's a conundrum for sure, but then so is him going to a middle of nowhere place like 10th street. What in the world was he doing there, walking along with no obvious place to go, when he could have been on a bus out of town?
** Oswald arranged for a unique weeknight ride to where his wife was staying instead of the usual weekend ride.
** Oswald brought to work a long object wrapped in paper (it would be too embarrassing to be seen with curtain rods).
** Oswald was the only one at work who immediately left the Dealey Plaza area. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I understand a few others left the building to check out what happened from other people in the plaza. And then found themselves locked out of the building by the police. Only then did they go home.
** Oswald got on a bus and then immediately off when it was stuck in traffic.
** Oswald ordered his only taxi ride (quite an expense) that we know of during his life.
This seems pretty consistent to me. If Oswald lived and told me a different story, I probably would not believe him.
Because unlike the majority of Americans, who were huddled around televisions and radios to learn of the President's fate, he decided it was more important to see a Mickey Mouse short and a war movie. Totally normal behavior if you think about it.
How can you be sure that Oswald even knew that the president was shot?
Got any evidence that he didn't know to back that up Grand Poobah?
Got any evidence that he didn't know to back that up Grand Poobah?
An object that both witnesses who saw it said was too short to hold the alleged murder weapon.
Because unlike the majority of Americans, who were huddled around televisions and radios to learn of the President's fate, he decided it was more important to see a Mickey Mouse short and a war movie. Totally normal behavior if you think about it.
If he had plans to get away he would have brought his pistol with him and would not have needed to go back to the rooming house.
Where was he going with his pistol?
That's not at all what Frazier and Randle said. Your spin of what they really said would be valid if they had actually been shown the alleged murder weapon and were then asked to compare it to the bag they saw Lee carrying that morning. Since they were not shown the rifle, you're comment above is meaningless (and untrue).
How can you be sure that Oswald even knew that the president was shot?
The bus driver confused Milton Jones for Oswald.
The bus driver identified Oswald in the line-up on Nov 22 as the man on his bus who was grinning about the President being shot. McWatters also identified the bus transfer that Oswald had on him as being one that he had punched. McWatters signed an affidavit attesting to both.
He went to the movies because he had no plans and was aimlessly walking around and the movie theater was there and cops were around. I know even come LNs disagree with me but I don't think there is any chance that Oswald thought he was getting out of the TSBD and didn't plan on what do do if he did. He had no plans and no place to go.
If he had plans to get away he would have brought his pistol with him and would not have needed to go back to the rooming house. How did he know the cops were not going to bust him at the rooming house? I don't think there is any way someone could shoot a President in front of all of those people and cops and think they are going to just walk out of that building. Plus if he had any real plans he would have kept more money.
How can you be sure that Oswald even knew that the president was shot?
He did not have any chance of shooting his way out of Dealey Plaza, so he did not bring a gun.
Why else would he leave work early? He wasn't curious as to why a police officer was 1) in the building and 2) pointing a gun at him?
He recanted his ID of Ozzie.
He did not bring a gun. Thanks Joe -- welcome to the dark side! :)
The bus driver identified Oswald in the line-up on Nov 22 as the man on his bus who was grinning about the President being shot.
http://www.differencebetween.net/object/difference-between-gun-and-rifle/
Lee never did anything to arouse any suspicion, in either Officer Baker nor Mr Truly. Mr Truly can not explain what made him single out Lee. How did Mr Truly know that Dougherty, alone on an upper floor, wasn't the assassin or a co conspirator?
Except the grinning man was Milton Jones.
Mr. BALL - Let me ask you this, though. Did you tell them the man, the smaller man, you saw in the lineup, did you tell them that you thought he was the man who got off your bus and got the transfer or the man who was on the bus who was the teenager who was grinning?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, I really thought he was the man who was on the bus.
Mr. BALL - That stayed on the bus?
Mr. McWATTERS - That stayed on the bus.
Mr. BALL - And you didn't think he was the man who got off the bus and to whom you gave a transfer?
Mr. McWATTERS - No, sir.
Cool!
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
All Mr. Truly knew is:
1. A rifle was found in the building, meaning one of his employees may have been the shooter.
My comment is perfectly true, and you're the one trying to spin it. Both of them estimated the length of the bag to be a size that was too short to hold the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, they both said that the CE142 did not look like the bag they saw.
He did not believe that there was going to be any more work that day?
He did not bring a gun. Thanks Joe -- welcome to the dark side! :)
Cool!
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
...and while we're at it:
https://wikidiff.com/pistol/revolver (https://wikidiff.com/pistol/revolver)
Bill,
when are you going to finally stop playing your childish word games?
The most critical observation was that on the night of 22/11/1963 - in front of Law Enforcement Officers - neither LMR nor BWF recognized an unstained CE 142 as being in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald that very morning.
When is it going to finally sink into your head?
The FBI expert made it absolutely clear - CE 142 was an oblong shaped home made paper bag that was 38 inches in length, with an open untapered and untaped end. In addition, there was NO evidence that any weapon was inside it.
A rifle is not a gun. It is a rifle. Oswald did not bring a gun. He brought a rifle.
I think this is exactly right. Except I don?t know any LNers who would disagree with you and say Oswald did have a plan for after the shooting. I think he did not expect to escape capture. He did not have any chance of shooting his way out of Dealey Plaza, so he did not bring a gun.
So I think Oswald was just putting distance between him and the boarding house, probably thinking about what to do next. Possibly try to catch a bus. Or maybe hop on a freight train. Who knows. He might not have decided yet when he was spotted by Officer Tippit, looking suspicious in some manner.
The bag was found in the sniper's nest with Oswald's prints on it. It was long enough for Oswald to carry his rifle in. Linnie Mae's original estimate of its length was about three feet. You cannot get around those facts no matter how hard you try. Frazier admitted that he never paid any attention to the bag. He has a record of being unobservant and of underestimating the length of objects. Linnie Mae's original estimate is almost dead on.
By whom?
Studebaker didn't find any prints on CE 142. The prints were found outside of the TSBD in the possession of the FBI. Does that mean Lee constructed CE 142?
was about three feet.
Please - I don't know whether you are joking or trying to yank my chain Tim. LMR who was behind a window cleaning the dishes and took a quick glance at Lee now made the most accurate guesstimate yet fails to recognize it that evening nor could construct one of the correct size? Spare me Tim. That's equivalent to Jack Dougherty failing to see the 38 inch paper bag because he was looking at the corner of his eye.
Frazier admitted that he never paid any attention to the bag
and one thing that destroys ALL of your arguments was that BWF made a direct observation of how Lee carried the paper bag from only a few feet away. We BOTH know what he said and you have seen my thread.
It never ceases to amaze me Tim, how you attribute super powers to the weakest of witnesses. Hold on - YES I do know why.
CE 142 was never in Lee's possession that morning - we have LMR, BWF and JED to tell us that Tim.
Read BWF's testimony again - you will be left with no doubt what he observed. If you don't believe it take it up with BWF.
By whom?
Studebaker didn't find any prints on CE 142. The prints were found outside of the TSBD in the possession of the FBI. Does that mean Lee constructed CE 142?
was about three feet.
Please - I don't know whether you are joking or trying to yank my chain Tim. LMR who was behind a window cleaning the dishes and took a quick glance at Lee now made the most accurate guesstimate yet fails to recognize it that evening nor could construct one of the correct size? Spare me Tim. That's equivalent to Jack Dougherty failing to see the 38 inch paper bag because he was looking at the corner of his eye.
Frazier admitted that he never paid any attention to the bag
and one thing that destroys ALL of your arguments was that BWF made a direct observation of how Lee carried the paper bag from only a few feet away. We BOTH know what he said and you have seen my thread.
It never ceases to amaze me Tim, how you attribute super powers to the weakest of witnesses. Hold on - YES I do know why.
CE 142 was never in Lee's possession that morning - we have LMR, BWF and JED to tell us that Tim.
Read BWF's testimony again - you will be left with no doubt what he observed. If you don't believe it take it up with BWF.
A bag was recovered at some time after the rifle was discovered, somewhere near the SE corner of the 6th floor on the afternoon of the assassination by someone. Det Studebaker claimed he fingerprinted the bag and found a partial print and placed tape over it. It was removed from the building by Det. Montgomery around 3pm and placed into evidence at DPD. It was sent to the FBI labs via Vincent Drain around midnight. The labs found no tape but developed a separate finger and palm print using silver nitrate and identified them to be Oswalds. Linnie May Randle was interviewed by the FBI, who claimed she estimated the length to be around 3 feet. She later testified that the package was close to the length consistently estimated by her brother.
Did Lee construct CE 142 - yes or no?
No one else's prints mattered Tim. The FBI expert only developed the ones belonging to Lee.
By who?
But it wasnt CE 142 Tim.
BS - that's not what he said in 1963 or 1964 or even now. Bugliosi wanted to add doubt, but BWF corrected himself when questioned by Gerry Spence. Don't add CRAP, Tim.
No Tim - there is nothing to support that.
There never was one eye witness who saw Lee with CE 142 - folded or unfolded.
On the NIGHT of 22/11/1963 - neither BWF (even after being heavily interrogated, placed on a polygraph machine and threatened physical violence by Captain Fritz) or LMR could ID CE142 as being the paper bag in Lee's possession some 16 hours prior.
Anything after that is in your imagination Tim.
Frazier stated that the paper bag shown to him was possibly the same one that Oswald had with him
Good Lord Tim! 38 inches X 8.5 inches is not "2 feet, give or take a few inches by 5 - 6 inches". Why are you denying this Tim?
Frazier was not threatened with physical violence
You don't think this was SOP for Captain Will Fritz?
Tim ,
You can not simply create your own version of events when the very eyewitnesses that were there were telling the authorizes that none of them saw CE 142 in Lee's possession. Deal with it.
Deal with that Mr Defense Attorney
I have more proof of it being constructed after the rifle was found than you will ever have of Lee doing the same the day prior.
Irrelevant if Lee didn't have CE 142 in his possession Tim.
Recognize the "players" Tim and their MO?
https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/may/henry-wade-executed-innocent-man/
Fast forward to 22/11/1963.
Because he actually maybe telling the truth, Tim.
Lee's version of events were never tested in court, in the presence of BWF and LMR because he was assassinated himself.
Of course it is Tim ;D Always a BS story when a defenseless young Negro is electrocuted for a crime he never committed and Wade and Fritz come up smelling like roses. right?
Texas, right?
Dan Rather
Needed to be fired for the stunt he pulled with his mock up of CE 142.
Frazier was not threatened with physical violence by Fritz or anyone else. While on the polygraph machine, Frazier stated that the paper bag shown to him was possibly the same one that Oswald had with him. The problem was that Frazier had simply not paid enough attention to the bag that morning to be able to say definitively that it was or was not the same bag.
The best evidence of the bag's size will always be the bag itself since it was found and can be measured. There is no reason to rely on someone's estimate. And go to endless absurd pedantic lengths in an attempt to ignore that the bag exists. It is classic CTer nonsense to nitpick every word of testimony and suggest everyone was in on the frame up while ignoring the elephant in the room. Frazier may honestly but erroneously believe the bag found was not the one he saw Oswald carry. He is mistaken. The bag was found. It has Oswald's prints on it. It's location suggests a connection to the assassination. There is no work related explanation for it to have been there. No one in 50 plus years who worked in the building ever provided any explanation for such a bag to have been there or indicated it belonged to them. No bag matching Frazier's estimate was ever found. Oswald himself denied carrying a bag as described by Frazier. The bag found on the 6th floor was used by Oswald to carry the rifle that morning. That is what happened and how it will be recorded in history.
He picked Oswald out of a line-up as having been a passenger on his bus. You're saying that what he said during the lineup and his signed affidavit should be disregarded in favor of what he said during his WC testimony?
Tony, I hope you're not questioning Day's integrity; that might upset Tim...
maybe you need to take up a different hobby
You too if you believe you can determine a bullet entry point at specifically C6 to the exclusion of any other vertebrae.
While on the polygraph machine, Frazier stated that the paper bag shown to him was possibly the same one that Oswald had with him.
This is at best a massive misrepresentation of the truth.
Are you claiming that Lewis never told Drain that Frazier said that it was possible that the bag shown to him was the case he had seen Oswald carrying?
No.. I am claiming that you misrepresent the truth by leaving out that - according to Lewis - Frazier had actually said "that it was possible that it was the case, but he did not think it resembled it"
Misrepresenting the truth only makes your arguments weaker, Tim.
You claimed that it was a massive misrepresentation of the truth on my part. When in fact, I didn't misrepresent the truth at all. What I stated was 100% factual.
He picked Oswald out of a line-up as having been a passenger on his bus. You're saying that what he said during the lineup and his signed affidavit should be disregarded in favor of what he said during his WC testimony?
Leaving out on purpose crucial information that negates or qualifies a previous statement is a misrepresentation of the truth.
Are you really this desperate?
That Brennan did not know that a rifle is not properly referred to as a gun does not negate the fact that Brennan saw an individual firing a rifle from the sixth floor floor of the TSBD. Revolvers and pistols are not shouldered when fired.
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle.
No. Your comment was not true at all. Can you quote Linnie Mae Randle stating that the bag was too short "to hold the alleged murder weapon"?
But that would mean something dramatic/tragic must have happened. Gee, I wonder what that was.
Tell us why Brennan calling the rifle a gun is important
Both weapons qualify as guns
All that proves is that not all people are gun-nuts
Marina, Brennan etc indicated they knew little or nothing about guns.
The bag was found in the sniper's nest
with Oswald's prints on it. It was long enough for Oswald to carry his rifle in.
Linnie Mae's original estimate of its length was about three feet.
You cannot get around those facts no matter how hard you try.
Arguably, the Walker incident sets a precedent regarding Oswald's maybe not expecting to come back from a night on the town... or a day at the office.
He was the man who drove the assassin to work FFS. He would face the death penalty if convicted. Duh.
Oswald's prints were on the bag. That means that he handled the bag.
It was found it the sniper's nest near the shell casings that had been fired in Oswald's rifle.
Linnie Mae's description of the bag she saw matched with that bag.
Frazier admitted that Oswald could have carried the bag in such a way that it's full length would not have been viewable to him.
I'm not desperate.Nor am I stupid. Claiming that I massively misrepresented the truth is just plain stupid. What I stated was the truth. Not one word of it was a lie or a misrepresentation of the truth.
Frazier and his sister both saw Oswald with CE 142. Oswald lied to his interviewers, saying that he never carried a long package to work that morning and that he never told Frazier that he brought curtains rods with him.
Frazier was not threatened with physical violence by Fritz or anyone else.
Tony , you really are desperate. You keep referring to the dimensions of the bag when it is empty. The package was 35 inches long by about 6 inches in width.
WTF? So now you have both BWF and LMR committing perjury? LOL! Tony, maybe you need to take up a different hobby.
Tony, your use of the term "Negro" could get you labeled as a racist.
The best evidence of the bag's size will always be the bag itself since it was found and can be measured.
"and in comes captain will fritz, who I have never seen in my life, never talked to. He brought in a typed statement, and he had a pen. He says here, sign this. He gave me a pen. I started reading it. Well, they wanted me to confess to being part of or having knowledge of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I read about two sentences of that, and I looked at him and I said that's ludicrous. I said I'm not signing that. So he drew his hand back to hit me, and I did my arm up like this because he was over here like you are. I told him -- I said -- he got very red-faced. He wasn't a real big man for his physical stature, but I hear he had a temper. Anyway, he -- I told him, I said, you know, I know there's policemen outside of the door. I said when they get in, you and I are going to have a hell of a fight."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?313792-1/lee-harvey-oswald-kennedy-assassination&start=2757 (https://www.c-span.org/video/?313792-1/lee-harvey-oswald-kennedy-assassination&start=2757)
What's racist about the word Negro?
You may not be stupid, but you seem to think everybody else is.
Let's try this another way. If I say; "it could be but I don't think Oswald killed Kennedy for fun"
You would claim I said that I don't think Oswald killed Kennedy, right?
That was Frazier speaking in 2013. Are we going to go by what he said that year and forward?
That was Frazier speaking in 2013. Are we going to go by what he said that year and forward?
I'm not desperate.Nor am I stupid. Claiming that I massively misrepresented the truth is just plain stupid. What I stated was the truth. Not one word of it was a lie or a misrepresentation of the truth.
LOL Martin. Your attempt at an analogy fails miserably.
Is there some reason not to?
Truly wouldn't allow all employees to be fingerprinted; explaining that it would slow down production.
I don't know if Frazier never told this story earlier, but let's go with 2013 being the first time he told the story publicly.
What do you say, Tim, does the fact that he did not tell it sooner somehow mean it's not true and it never happened?
Is that a yes from you as well? We are going to go by what he said that year and forward?
Now you're playing Bill Brown word games. You misrepresented the truth by leaving out the part of the quote that undermines your argument.
"Frazier said that it was possible this was the case, but he did not think it resembled it."
Where is this leading? Does this contradict anything he said prior to 2013?
Now you're playing Bill Brown word games. You misrepresented the truth by leaving out the part of the quote that undermines your argument.
"Frazier said that it was possible this was the case, but he did not think it resembled it."
Why not just answer the question with a yes or no?
That's right. Frazier definitely did not see Oswald carrying a bag covered in fingerprint powder.
LOL. Are you now switching ponies and claiming the investigators competent?
Re Truly, I didn't make that up. Perhaps you need to drill down rather deeper into your 'research'
And are you claiming all employees in the building were fingerprinted?
It's a loaded question. Of what relevance is the year that the interview took place if it doesn't contradict something he said earlier? How does that equate to "we are going to go by what he said that year and forward"?
Yeah, because fingerprint powder turns flimsy and crinkly paper into thick wrapping paper.
::)
Randle did not describe the bag she saw Oswald carrying as 'flimsy and crinkly'
I'm not playing word games at all. I said that Frazier stated that it was possible that it was the same case. That's all I said. There is no untruth in that.
Perhaps she just wasn't close enough to see.
Are you now switching ponies and claiming the investigators competent?
I'm not switching anything and I have come across the claim about Truly before. It was a pointless comment back then and still is today.
Truly's objections would have been worthless if the investigators wanted to fingerprint everybody in the building.
'If they wanted'
Are you sure people couldn't claim their right to privacy and demand to be shown 'just cause'
Sure, they could claim that....
But that's another matter and has nothing to do with Truly's objections.
It's the very crux of the matter when taken in context with Truly objecting to having 'innocent people' fingerprinted.
Circular argument -- it's the same bag because it's the same bag.
There is nothing circular about this Inspector Ding-a-Ling except your IQ. What is the best evidence of an object's size? Someone's estimate or measuring the object itself? Surely a lazy contrarian, defense attorney would acknowledge that witnesses are often wrong as to details?
So what needs to be explained if this is not Oswald's bag: 1) bad luck by Old Lee to have touched and left his prints on this particular bag (the only TSBD employee to have done so); 2) its location near the SN; 3) no bag matching Frazier's estimate ever being found; 4) Oswald himself denying he carried any bag along the size estimated by Frazier; 5) multiple DPD officers confirming the bag was found on the 6th floor; 6) no apparent work-related purpose for such a bag to be in the TSBD; 7) no one else ever coming forward who worked in the building to indicate it was their bag or who could explain its presence (50 plus years and counting).
What needs to be explained if this is Oswald's bag: 1) Frazier was off in his estimate of its length.
If he does say things that contradict what he said earlier, doesn't that raise doubt about all of his later statements?
'If they wanted'
Are you sure people couldn't claim their right to privacy and demand to be shown 'just cause'
There is nothing circular about this Inspector Ding-a-Ling except your IQ. What is the best evidence of an object's size? Someone's estimate or measuring the object itself?
So what needs to be explained if this is not Oswald's bag: 1) bad luck by Old Lee to have touched and left his prints on this particular bag (the only TSBD employee to have done so); 2) its location near the SN; 3) no bag matching Frazier's estimate ever being found; 4) Oswald himself denying he carried any bag along the size estimated by Frazier; 5) multiple DPD officers confirming the bag was found on the 6th floor; 6) no apparent work-related purpose for such a bag to be in the TSBD; 7) no one else ever coming forward who worked in the building to indicate it was their bag or who could explain its presence (50 plus years and counting).
It's no use Richard. If Oswald were alive today and said "I did it", most of the people on here would jump up and down with their hair on fire and call him a liar and ask him, "do you have any evidence to prove it!" Truly fascinating.
The only "evidence" Wesley can come up with is his imagined response to some fantasy confession that never actually happened. Brilliant.
Do you have any evidence that I ever claimed to have made an imagined response to some fantasy confession? ;D
He went to the movies because he had no plans and was aimlessly walking around and the movie theater was there and cops were around. I know even come LNs disagree with me but I don't think there is any chance that Oswald thought he was getting out of the TSBD and didn't plan on what do do if he did. He had no plans and no place to go.
If he had plans to get away he would have brought his pistol with him and would not have needed to go back to the rooming house. How did he know the cops were not going to bust him at the rooming house? I don't think there is any way someone could shoot a President in front of all of those people and cops and think they are going to just walk out of that building. Plus if he had any real plans he would have kept more money.
How can you be sure that Oswald even knew that the president was shot?
Why else would he leave work early? He wasn't curious as to why a police officer was 1) in the building and 2) pointing a gun at him?
He did not believe that there was going to be any more work that day?
Bill,
when are you going to finally stop playing your childish word games?
The most critical observation was that on the night of 22/11/1963 - in front of Law Enforcement Officers - neither LMR nor BWF recognized an unstained CE 142 as being in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald that very morning.
When is it going to finally sink into your head?
The FBI expert made it absolutely clear - CE 142 was an oblong shaped home made paper bag that was 38 inches in length, with an open untapered and untaped end. In addition, there was NO evidence that any weapon was inside it.
when are you going to finally stop playing your childish word games?
It is relevant and it's something that you cannot just dismiss or wish away. It has to be dealt with. How would you do so in front of a jury? Why would Oswald deny that he carried a long package to work that morning and deny that he told Frazier that it was curtain rods?
She estimated the bag to be 27 inches long, which was too short to hold the alleged murder weapon.
This is a classic example of Iacoletti, using shady defense lawyer tactics, showing that he is willing to jump through any hoop to get a double murderer off the hook.
One minute, we cannot be sure that Oswald was even aware that the President had been shot at... and then, in the next minute, Oswald possibly left work early because he didn't believe there was going to be any more work that day because the President had been shot at.
Nice work, Sean Kneringer.
"A" bag is very different from a PARTICULAR bag as the WC claimed. Your claim that the WC's UNSUPPORTED claim of what type of bag was used is accurate is what is "pathetic."
It's no use Richard. If Oswald were alive today and said "I did it", most of the people on here would jump up and down with their hair on fire and call him a liar and ask him, "do you have any evidence to prove it!" Truly fascinating.
LOL, they didn't have to show any just cause to search, beat up, and arrest a guy in a theater for murder based on looking funny to a shoe salesman.
So Oswald knows nothing about the shooting, simply walks out of the building, sees the screaming and yelling and chaos all around, and just decides, "I think I'll go to a movie."
Even shady lawyers wouldn't try to sell that one.
Desperate conspiracy believers? Sure, but not defense lawyers.
This is a classic example of Iacoletti, using shady defense lawyer tactics, showing that he is willing to jump through any hoop to get a double murderer off the hook.
One minute, we cannot be sure that Oswald was even aware that the President had been shot at... and then, in the next minute, Oswald possibly left work early because he didn't believe there was going to be any more work that day because the President had been shot at.
Iacoletti stated that Randle and Frazier stated that the bag was too short to carry the alleged murder weapon. This is an incorrect statement by Iacoletti.
You can call it word games all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Iacoletti misspoke. A newbie, after reading Iacoletti's false statement, could be left with false knowledge that Linnie Mae Randle told the authorities that the rifle was too long for the bag.
Tim, you're talking to Tony Fratini who has a theory about the bag... and if his theory is true, then Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier were flat out lying when they said they saw Oswald carrying some sort of bag that morning.
Frazier and Randle... Lying.
Oswald... Not Lying.
Pathetic, in my opinion.
Tim, you're talking to Tony Fratini who has a theory about the bag... and if his theory is true, then Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier were flat out lying when they said they saw Oswald carrying some sort of bag that morning.
Frazier and Randle... Lying.
Oswald... Not Lying.
Pathetic, in my opinion.
So Oswald knows nothing about the shooting, simply walks out of the building, sees the screaming and yelling and chaos all around, and just decides, "I think I'll go to a movie."
Even shady lawyers wouldn't try to sell that one.
Desperate conspiracy believers? Sure, but not defense lawyers.
That's right. A perfect example of that is Sirhan Sirhan admitted, in a filmed interview, that he shot Bobby Kennedy... even going as far as explaining his motive for doing so. Yet, some conspiracy nuts, many who are members of this forum, totally ignore that interview.
Oswald was beat up and arrested for punching a police officer, regardless of what the erroneous arrest report says. Live with it.
Such as?
Bill, Tony made the mistake of adopting a pet theory. People should be wary of doing that sort of thing. You'll likely end up defending the undefendable and looking foolish in the process.
If you can prove me wrong Tim, that would be marvelous.
Your pet theory is that CE 399 hit JFK at the level of C6 without one shred of evidence it was a through and through wound and CE 399 was involved in hitting anyone.
You think I have issues with my theory? ;D
You haven't answered the question.
That's right. A perfect example of that is Sirhan Sirhan admitted, in a filmed interview, that he shot Bobby Kennedy... even going as far as explaining his motive for doing so. Yet, some conspiracy nuts, many who are members of this forum, totally ignore that interview.
An admission of guilt does NOT trump the evidence. Nothing does. The evidence does NOT support that Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK, but doesn't rule out that he fired his gun.
Yet, some conspiracy nuts
Bill, Tony made the mistake of adopting a pet theory. People should be wary of doing that sort of thing. You'll likely end up defending the undefendable and looking foolish in the process.
So, Lee Oswald just happened to be seen (by both Randle and Frazier) carrying a long bag/sack on the morning of the assassination, a bag totally unrelated to the rifle?
It's a simple question, Tony.
Either Oswald was carrying a longer bag that morning or he wasn't.
Was he?
Buell and Randle contradicting WC claims would be a first step towards playing down the fact that Buell had chauffeured the prime suspect to the crime scene.
Persons not seeing or hearing Dirty Harvey on the stairs only proves that they didn't see or hear Dirty Harvey on the stairs.
Persons not seeing any package in Oswald's hands only proves that they didn't see a package in Oswald's hands.
So, Randle and Frazier saw Oswald with a long bag coincidentally on the same day, out of every day in the history of Oswald riding to work with Frazier, that he (Oswald) would later be the accused assassin... One hell of a coincidence.
What makes you think I have or even need that kind of documentation?
Because his shtick is that you need to prove that Oswald didn't come down the stairs.
People who accept the Warren Commission conclusions almost universally don't understand burden of proof.
Oh yeah, back to why Oswald went to the movies...
He liked movies. And popcorn. And there was no more work that day.
You seem to be assuming that the package would have to be carried straight up.
Explain how Oswald knew there was no more work that day.
You seem to be assuming that the package would have to be carried straight up.
But you support it, right?
Because his shtick is that you need to prove that Oswald didn't come down the stairs.
People who accept the Warren Commission conclusions almost universally don't understand burden of proof.
Oh yeah, back to why Oswald went to the movies...
He liked movies. And popcorn. And there was no more work that day.
Fritz's account was "He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe that there was going to be anymore work that day due to the confusion in the building."
I don't know how you get from that to "he knew the president was shot".
I don't know how you get from that to "he knew the president was shot".
Um, yeah. Okay.
And he liked staring blankly at tennis shoes, apparently. Not interested in cop cars speeding by with sirens wailing, though.
Buell had good reason to suspect that he might be charged as an accessory in the assassination, given that he delivered the killer to the scene. Repeatedly assurring questioners that he didn't pay attention to the bag would arguably suggest that he wanted to bolster a position that would serve him reasonably well on the stand.
Couple that with the statements by Buell in later years that he didn't want to spend the rest of his life being scorned. Additionally, he did move away from Dallas I think; stating that he feared for his family's safety.
The CHAIRMAN - Could he have had the top of it behind his shoulder, or are you sure it was cupped under his shoulder there?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; because the way it looked, you know, like I say, he had it cupped in his hand.
The CHAIRMAN - I beg your pardon?
Mr. FRAZIER - I said from where I noticed he had it cupped in his hands. And I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit because if you had it cupped in your hand it would stick over it.
Mr. BALL - Could he have carried it this way?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. Never in front here. Like that. Now, that is what I was talking to you about. No, I say he couldn't because if he had you would have seen the package sticking up like that.
From what I seen walking behind he had it under his arm and you couldn't tell that he had a package from the back.
Mr. FRAZIER - I said from where I noticed he had it cupped in his hands. And I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit because if you had it cupped in your hand it would stick over it.
...and did it stick over it?
It did not show above the shoulder because Oswald had it extended out in front of him, supporting it with his other hand.
Well there is this. Mrs. Robert Reid told him that the president was shot at.
Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?
Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him."
He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand so he didn't come for change and I dismissed him. I didn't think anything else.
As I said ? now look who?s calling witnesses liars!
Really? Where to? Is this another one of your ?recollections??
Dougherty did say that though.
Exactly, all I did was quote Dougherty and Fratini went ballistic.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
And btw, Frazier saw Oswald carrying the package and entering the Annex door which was not the same door that Dougherty saw.
(https://s18.postimg.org/at8bvch61/1st-floor.jpg)
JohnM
Kudos to Buell for putting his family first
Like Brennan did
And a damn good reason for claiming the bag
was too small to contain a rifle. See Buell confirm
those fears below, and protect his best bud at
the same time.
Another twofer ;)
His first marriage ended in 1987 and he re-married in 1988. He is now retired from his job with the Lewisville School Board where as a receiving clerk he was responsible for stocking schools with equipment and furniture.
Dougherty did say that though.
Yes, but Shelley never did.
You know what else Dougherty said?
"I didn't see anything in his hands at the time"
I'll remember that the next time you do your usual grandstanding about calling witnesses liars.
You're aware, aren't you, that Lewisville is a suburb of Dallas? And to this day he has never wavered from what the bag he saw looked like. Are you suggesting that he's still "afraid for his family"?
I guess that rules out Oswald carrying his lunch - as he claimed - or a two foot long bag which you previously swore must be the gospel truth since Frazier said so.
How is pointing out that you and others deign to inform readers what witnesses really saw or really said or what they really would have done qualify as 'grandstanding' on my part, exactly?
You're aware, aren't you, that Buell joined the army and lived in Denver, Colorado and Portland, Oregan. Pretty sure those locations aren't Dallas suburbs.
When did I ever swear this must be the gospel truth since Frazier said so? Do you ever get tired of making things up?
Can you prove that Oswald carried CE 142 into the building and that it had CE 139 inside it? Or can you not?
Just more moronic games.
You have repeatedly cited Frazier's estimate of the bag size to refute the conclusion that Oswald carried a longer bag found on the 6th floor.
Are you now confirming he could have been wrong and the bag could have been longer than he estimated?
It is bizarre to repeatedly cite Frazier's claim that Oswald carried a two-foot long bag but then cite Dougherty's inconsistent claim that Oswald had nothing in his hands. They both cannot be true.
Hey, Wesley. A few years back a comedian was making fun of Depends underwear
as to why any person would buy a product with such a name.
Will this type of underwear be helpful in case I have an accident?
Depends.
So, why did Oswald go to the movies?
Depends.
Was he the lone gunman and murdered Tippit as well? Was he involved in a team? Was he innocent
and afraid for his life? Was he going to a safe house and he encountered and murdered Tippit? Was he planning to kill someone else before he encountered Tippit? Did he have his own escape plan where he would wait in the dark and leave at night? Was he involved and went to the TT to meet his contact?
And, on and on ...
Depends.
Just more moronic games. You have repeatedly cited Frazier's estimate of the bag size to refute the conclusion that Oswald carried a longer bag found on the 6th floor. Are you now confirming he could have been wrong and the bag could have been longer than he estimated? It is bizarre to repeatedly cite Frazier's claim that Oswald carried a two-foot long bag but then cite Dougherty's inconsistent claim that Oswald had nothing in his hands. They both cannot be true. Either Oswald had a bag or not. Oswald himself said he carried a bag. Frazier said he had a bag. That would seemingly be conclusive of the issue that he had something in his hands and prove Dougherty wrong. But you cited his testimony anyway without acknowledging that it undermines your previous argument that Oswald had a two-foot long bag in his hands that morning. Dishonest but the norm.
The theory that Oswald was heading to an Alpha 66 Safe House near Oak Cliff (the Harlandale house) before his encounter with Officer Tippit seems pretty compelling. Oswald was allegedly seen visiting a home known to be used by Cuban Exiles in the weeks or days leading up to 11/22/63.
The visit to the Texas Theater may have been an unplanned detour.
""Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Oswald himself said he carried a bag.
That's according to Fritz.... The truth is: We don't know what Lee said....And you generally deny anything that Lee reportedly said.....calling him a liar, So why do you cite his alleged statement now?
You mean the same Dougherty who saw Oswald only out of the corner of his eye? That's right... don't mention that part.
""Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
When did Dougherty say that he saw Oswald only out of the corner of his eye?
Show us where JackD said he saw Oswald from any other angle other than just catching him out of the corner of his eye.
There you go again.
Your claim: "Dougherty saw Oswald only out of the corner of his eye"
Your evidence: "Prove he didn't"
...which is how you approach every claim you make about this case.
Either way you always end up with zero persons seeing Oswald with a bag inside the TSBD.
Will you ever comprehend this fact?
There you go again.
Your claim: "Dougherty saw Oswald only out of the corner of his eye"
Your evidence: "Prove he didn't"
...which is how you approach every claim you make about this case.
Do you have evidence that JackD viewed Oswald before, beyond, after, or following seeing him out of the corner of his eye?
BTW:
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to
you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when
he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---
that's the reason why I said it that way. ....
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
So JackD doesn't think he was guessing, huh LOL
Tony... I'm just saying that it's unremarkable that nobody saw Oswald:
-- Take the paper from the shipping area (or construct the bag right there).
-- Transport the paper from the TSBD to the Paine's residence in Irving.
-- Construct the paper bag in the garage at the Paine's residence.
-- Pass Dougherty on the way to the freight elevator without this co-worker seeing the bag.
Oswald "was" seen carrying the paper bag into the TSBD by Buell Wesley Frazier.
I read 6 saw it. Plus that corner would be in shadow, and I understand that the bag was folded in half lengthwise and didn't someone pick it up and put it out of the way? (I'm not clear there)
Also, a paper package in a building full of books wrapped in paper might not initially look out of place in the rush to find a rifle & spent shells. Especially a bag apparently looking 'flimsy and crinkly' according to you characters.
So your argument is that all of them *could possibly* have not noticed it, therefore it definitely was there when the SN was first discovered?
So your argument is that all of them *could possibly* have not noticed it, therefore it definitely was there when the SN was first discovered?
Then what reason do you have for believing that he did all of these things anyway?
What do you mean "*THE* paper bag"? Frazier saw Oswald carrying *A* paper sack. A flimsy crinkly 2-foot sack under his armpit between the parking lot and the entrance to the northern annex.
The same flimsy, crinkly bag that should have been seen and considered important by all the officers in the SN, John? Not that you characters want it both ways.
You characters seem somewhat blissfully unaware of your own contradictions.
Nah, just the potential.
Is this your way of saying that you have no evidence showing that LHO ever made a bag Ross?
His prints are on the bag!
Has anyone in the 50 plus years since the assassination come forward to say hey that bag you believe Oswald used to carry the bag was actually mine? It's lunacy to suggest there is "no evidence" of this under the circumstances. Oswald was seen carrying a long bag that morning. No other bag matching that description was ever found in the TSBD. There is no apparent work-related purpose for the bag that was found to be there. No one who worked there ever came forward with any explanation for that bag to be there. Oswald's prints are on that bag. It is next to the SN where his prints were also found and fired bullet casings from his rifle were located. Absent a time-machine, it is difficult to see how we could have much more evidence to link him to this bag.
You're like a broken record. You haven't established that any of these claims are true. You're just assuming them as well:
"(the only TSBD employee to have done so)"
"Oswald himself denying he carried any bag along the size estimated by Frazier"
"its location near the SN"
"no apparent work-related purpose for such a bag to be in the TSBD"
And these are all still stupid "absence of evidence equals evidence of absence" arguments that you keep trotting out over and over again:
"no bag matching Frazier's estimate ever being found"
"no one else ever coming forward who worked in the building to indicate it was their bag or who could explain its presence"
This has been refuted over and over and over again. No bag ever matching Harold Norman's lunch bag was ever found either. So by Richard Smith twisted logic, that never existed either.
You can't prove with any actual evidence that CE142 was in the SN when it was first discovered (the first 5-6 officers on the scene did not see it, and Studebaker didn't photograph it even though he was standing right there with a camera).
You can't prove with any actual evidence that CE142 was the bag that Frazier and Randle saw. They both said it was not.
You can't prove with any actual evidence that there was ever a rifle inside CE142.
Deal with it.
"the bag". LOL.
How many times are you going to keep making the same fallacious arguments?
Really?
Representative FORD. The suggestion has been made, Mr. Murray, that perhaps you would like to look at that palmprint and the fingerprint on the wrapping, and you might make a statement the same as Mr. Dulles and I have made.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you point out to Mr. Murray, Mr. Latona, the two prints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir. "A" is the fingerprint.
Mr. DULLES. And the witness certifies that these are true photographs of the fingerprint and the palmprint that you have exhibited?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.
Mr. MURRAY. May I say for the. record, Mr. Chairman, that I definitely and clearly saw what appeared to me to be a palmprint in the port of Exhibit 142 which was designated with a "B," and less clearly, but nevertheless I did see, the fingerprint on the other portion of the bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona----
Mr. LATONA. "B" is the finger, and "A" is the palm.
I agree that the ring/money thing on it's own could not convict Oswald. Pretty sure that no LNer is claiming that. Go ahead and continue to try and make it look like we are. You are only making yourself look the fool.
Why bring up conjecture like this at all instead of discussing what you think constitutes real evidence. Because it's all conjecture?
Speaking of looking the fool, Bugliosi did try to claim that every individual piece of his "evidence" (yes, including the ring in a cup) was sufficient to convict Oswald. Do you disagree?
Richard brought up the ring/money thing. I brought up the ongoing attack you apply to any mention of an individual non-routine action Oswald took in those last couple of days.
Are you certain that Bug claimed every one of those claims would convict on their own? I read where he said that he could throw 30 of them out and still convict.
What ring? Can you cite the DPD evidence log that shows a wedding ring on it?
What ring? Can you cite the DPD evidence log that shows a wedding ring on it?
Do you see it on Oswald's finger in the photos after his arrest? What do you think happened? Someone tried to frame Oswald by forcibly taking his wedding ring and leaving it in a cup at Paine's home? Then overlook it in a search. LOL. You kooks are amazing. And then without missing a beat you also claim it is not evidence of guilt. The very thing you imply is the purpose for someone to plant it. To make it look as though Oswald had foreknowledge of the event. Narrative consistency has never been a strong suit of fringe element.
It doesn't work this way. You are claiming his ring was found by the DPD, but have provided ZERO evidence showing that they did. Sound familiar? It should since this is how every WC claim went.
Speculation is NOT evidence. Opinion is NOT evidence. Assumption is NOT evidence.
If LHO did murder Tippit as claimed, why did he try to "hide out" in the Texas Theater and then draw attention to himself by entering without paying, even though he had enough money on him to buy a ticket? Wouldn?t it have drawn less attention to pay the nominal movie ticket price?
Why does almost every claim by the WC make no sense IF LHO was guilty as claimed?
It doesn't take a genius to understand that Oswald, by trying to sneak in unnoticed by anyone, was attempting to have as little attention drawn to him as possible. Paying for a ticket meant, for all he knew, that the ticket girl (Postal) could eventually recognize him when his face was plastered all over the news in the next hour or so as being the man missing from the building where the shots came from, the same man who owned the rifle found in the building, the same man who was currently inside her theater (again, for Oswald really knew).
The original reason for 67 cops and three of Hoover's FBI agents going to the theater was because a man had entered without buying a ticket. That reason was unknown to anybody in the theater....It was based on an assumption of John Brewer ..... Brewer claimed that he saw a man enter the theater without buying a ticket.....but he had no way of knowing that the man hadn't bought a ticket minutes prior to entering the theater. And Lee Oswald was never even asked whether he had bought a ticket.... Which was the initial reason given that THREE FBI Agents were there at the time Lee was arrested.
Pure nonesense. The TT was miles from the scene of the assassination so there was no reason to sneak anywhere.
Furthermore, Postal testified to NOT being aware of the JDT shooting so that was NOT an issue either.
There is NOT a shred of evidence showing that LHO ever owned CE 139. If you disagree then cite it.
LHO had no reason to sneak anywhere as he was NOT the only one who had left the TSBD. You are starting to sound like the run-of-the-mill LNer Brown.
Pure nonesense. The TT was miles from the scene of the assassination so there was no reason to sneak anywhere.
Furthermore, Postal testified to NOT being aware of the JDT shooting so that was NOT an issue either.
There is NOT a shred of evidence showing that LHO ever owned CE 139. If you disagree then cite it.
LHO had no reason to sneak anywhere as he was NOT the only one who had left the TSBD.
How about you name the "67 cops" who ascended upon the theater?
And... Julia Postal's phone call to the police had as much to do with the police arriving at the theater as did any "assumption of John Brewer".
Why don't you stop with the exaggerations and misstatements?
I can name Hoover's agents who were there at the theater.... Bob Barrett, Bardwell Odum, and Jim Swinford....
Now why the hell would there be three of Hoover's agents there in the theater at the time ???
Totally unrelated to your claim that "67 cops" went to the theater.
Totally unrelated to your claim that "67 cops" went to the theater.
Didn't you say that it was allegedly found at the Paines? I think so. Stop playing games and cite your evidence for a ring being found at the Paines or admit that you support a myth.
Pure nonesense. The TT was miles from the scene of the assassination so there was no reason to sneak anywhere.
Furthermore, Postal testified to NOT being aware of the JDT shooting so that was NOT an issue either.
There is NOT a shred of evidence showing that LHO ever owned CE 139. If you disagree then cite it.
LHO had no reason to sneak anywhere as he was NOT the only one who had left the TSBD. You are starting to sound like the run-of-the-mill LNer Brown.
So you rely on unsupported claims. No shock there. Do you understand what evidence is? Doesn't seem like it.
Pure nonesense. The TT was miles from the scene of the assassination so there was no reason to sneak anywhere.
Furthermore, Postal testified to NOT being aware of the JDT shooting so that was NOT an issue either.
Truly had just vouched for him in front of a policeman.
All good.
Learn the basics of the case.
Has nothing to do with "hindsight".
Do the math if you need the number.
That evidence had been cited, dozens of times in the old forum, and you ignored it. I'm not jumping through your kook hoops.
I have addressed your silly claims with substantive respones.
Fine, no problem.
Your highlighted statement, and consequently what follows, makes no sense as it has nothing to do with hindsight. Hindsight is what he would have done HAD he known whatever that might be. For all Oswald KNEW he was in the clear.
There is no way that Oswald could have known that his description and maybe name and even a picture were not out there.
Exactly right. Why take the chance? Same with his decision to be careful about his rooming house drop-off location.
Every one of us has had situations when we imagine the worst no matter if the reality seems to dictate otherwise.That's it, it's all over now. Poor dumb cop. That's it, it's all over now. Poor dumb cop. That's it; it's all over now. Poor dumb cop. That's it; it's all over now. Poor dumb cop. That's it; it's all over now. Poor dumb cop.
Exactly. I was going to bring up the rooming house incident as an example of Oswald not being sure what was going on but figured that would start some argument about that.
I made that argument before and John I made it clear that he does understand hindsight either. He was arguing that it made no sense for Oswald to be worried at that point because the word was not out yet. I could not get it through to him.
Exactly right. Why take the chance? Same with his decision to be careful about his rooming house drop-off location.
Every one of us has had situations when we imagine the worst no matter if the reality seems to dictate otherwise.
But then he leaves a back alley to walk down a major thoroughfare and stops in front of a shoe store in full view of the sales clerk long enough to "look scared" just for good measure.
So much for being careful. But then whatever you think Oswald did that day "proves" that he's guilty.
I made that argument before and John I made it clear that he does understand hindsight either. He was arguing that it made no sense for Oswald to be worried at that point because the word was not out yet. I could not get it through to him.
He's arguing from the perspective of a defence lawyer. And of a troll. And from the notion that Oswald was innocent so why would he have cause to be nervous. He reminds me of the Melissa McCarthy 'Sean Spicer' impression, on the podium running around bashing into people (but wearing a powdered wig and lawyer's robes)
Good point John. He should have just stayed in a back alley.
That hindsight thing again. John knows about Brewer because he has studied the case. Oswald did not know that a sales clerk would be watching him.
Mr. BALL. During the afternoon of the week----do you take tickets too?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes----I take tickets every day.
Mr. BALL. You do?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And, run the concession?
Mr. BURROUGHS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. If anybody comes in there without a ticket, what do you do, run them off?
Mr. BURROUGHS. I make it a point to stop them and ask them to go out and get a ticket. I just failed to see him when he slipped in.
Being stopped by Burroughs AND having to go out and and buy the ticket anyway from Postal: two mental notes taken.
Bad worst case scenario, Bill.
Was that too complicated for you?
(No, the quote is not hindsight. Shows that imagined worst case could be very real.)
"I just failed to see him when he slipped in."
How did Burroughs know that Lee "slipped in", if he never saw him??
Simply because Lee was in the theater does not mean he slipped in with out buying a ticket..... Burroughs, in his testimony says that he could have been distracted when a patron entered and took his ticket without noticing anything about that person....
Exactly right. Why take the chance? Same with his decision to be careful about his rooming house drop-off location.
Every one of us has had situations when we imagine the worst no matter if the reality seems to dictate otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's it... it's all over now. Poor dumb cop. That's it... it's all over now. Poor dumb cop. That's it... it's all over now. Poor dumb cop.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who would Oswald have bought a ticket from? Postal didn't sell him one. He doesn't have a ticket or ticket stub on him when arrested.
C'mon Brian. Are you suggesting that a clerk being inside a shoe store during the day on a Friday would have been the least bit unexpected? He would have seen Brewer there just as easily as Brewer saw him. And yet, "careful Oswald" lingered there anyway. So was he being cautious just in case or wasn't he? It seems like he was only cautious when it fits your narrative.
Not even to mention how this careful guy supposedly hung around the Tippit crime scene emptying his gun and looking at people in the face. Whoever this guy was, he wanted to be seen.
Postal didn't sell him one.
Did Postal remember every patron who she sold a ticket to??.... While she was being distracted by police cars zipping by??
He doesn't have a ticket or ticket stub on him when arrested.
I'd bet that 75% of the patrons didn't have a ticket stub on them in the theater.....People routinely throw the ticket stub away once they are inside the theater......
Oh dear, our WC parrot is back.
Worth noting that Postal's affidavit is dated DECEMBER 4th. Wow, it took them way over a week to get back to her or did it need that much work to even sound creditable?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340274/m1/1/?q=julia%20postal
BTW, was there a need to buy a ticket it you had a pass?
Mrs. POSTAL. We had three. Adults 90 cents, teenager with a card is 50 cents, and a child is 35, and you have a pass ticket.
Who would Oswald have bought a ticket from? Postal didn't sell him one.
He doesn't have a ticket or ticket stub on him when arrested.
Postal indicated in her affidavit that she was asked by the DPD when she called to report a suspicious person whether he had bought a ticket. And she confirmed that he had not. Do you really believe she would not have remembered whether she had sold Oswald a ticket just moments before calling the police?
And poor old Lee. He couldn't catch a break that day! He is in the building from which shots are fired at the president with no alibi,
knocks off to go to the movies and less than an hour later passes the scene of the murder of a DPD officer
(the only one in about a three year period)
A whole week or so! LOL. And she is recounting a call that happened seconds after Oswald entered the theatre in which she was asked and confirmed that she did not sell him a ticket. Oswald had a "pass ticket"? I give you extra credit for trying real hard. It's better than John I's embarrassing attempt to claim Oswald somehow and for some unknown reason bought a ticket that morning.
Postal never suggested or implied Oswald had a "pass ticket." But we await any evidence whatsoever that you have to show us that Oswald had such a pass ticket (which he presumably would need to show someone who didn't remember it - more bad luck).
You're arguing from the notion that you're sure Oswald probably did it, but are unable to ever articulate why.
This is why you have absolutely no credibility. I never claimed that Oswald somehow and for some unknown reason bought a ticket that morning. I asked how you knew for a fact that he didn't buy a ticket. Answer: crickets
There you go again. Your unfounded assumptions are automatically correct unless somebody can prove you wrong. You're not just Strawman Smith and Ad Hominem Smith -- you're Burden Shifting Smith. Or maybe we can simplify it and just call you "Logical Fallacy Man".
Your total lack of understanding of the evidence in this case is astounding. Do you even know what your beloved WCR claimed?
You have NO evidence showing that he snuck anywhere.
But then he leaves a back alley to walk down a major thoroughfare and stops in front of a shoe store in full view of the sales clerk long enough to "look scared" just for good measure.
So much for being careful. But then whatever you think Oswald did that day "proves" that he's guilty.
John the Never-ending Story Man
Man, your standard-of-proof level is downright insane
Yeah, stay in the alley and expose oneself, for example, to someone gazing out the bathroom or kitchen window or even taking the garbage out, seeing a complete stranger lurking about. Said citizen(s) possibly knowing there was a manhunt underway. Shortly after the assassination. And with the cop killing scene not far away.
Yep. Stay in that alley. Great plan!
Pretty sure Dirty Harvey's first order of business would be to avoid the police cars. And talking about the 'dishonesty' you seem so fond of laying at the feet of us poor lemmings, where do you get the idea that Oswald was standing in front of the store? Brewer clearly states (in his affidavit) that Oswald was in the lobby.
Clearly the caution shown re his drop-off location near his boarding house was repeated upon taking steps to afford himself better cover in the shoe store lobby.
John the Never-ending Story Man
Man, your standard-of-proof level is downright insane
Are you going to argue all this over&and&over&over, ad nauseum, until the end of time?
You mean in a court of law? Where did I say I could prove anything here?
;)
Yeah, stay in the alley and expose oneself, for example, to someone gazing out the bathroom or kitchen window or even taking the garbage out, seeing a complete stranger lurking about. Said citizen(s) possibly knowing there was a manhunt underway. Shortly after the assassination. And with the cop killing scene not far away.
Yep. Stay in that alley. Great plan!
Pretty sure Dirty Harvey's first order of business would be to avoid the police cars. And talking about the 'dishonesty' you seem so fond of laying at the feet of us poor lemmings, where do you get the idea that Oswald was standing in front of the store? Brewer clearly states (in his affidavit) that Oswald was in the lobby.
Clearly the caution shown re his drop-off location near his boarding house was repeated upon taking steps to afford himself better cover in the shoe store lobby.
I am still waiting for John to tell give is the plan that makes sense for Oswald. I guess John thinks it would have been a good idea to wait in the alley. For how long?
Won't even bother again with John's silly argument that Oswald should have known Brewer was \watching him.
You haven't even demonstrated that is was Oswald in that alley.
But my objection here is that you paint a picture of an Oswald who is so careful that he has a cab driver drive past his rooming house to see if cops are there but so careless that he runs back up Beckley street in full view of cops who may be coming there. You paint a picture of an Oswald who is so careful that he sneaks into a theater just in case the ticket booth clerk might recognize him, but so careless that he lingers in front of a shoe store without worrying about whether the shoe store clerk might recognize him.
The picture you paint is inconsistent, and that has nothing to do with any hindsight.
Are you suggesting that Brewer could see the man in front of his shop, but the man couldn't see Brewer? What, were there one-way mirrors installed on the storefront?
How about entering the shoe store (returning customer!) and listen in on the radio with Brewer for the latest on the killings?
That's a win-win.
Have you actually looked up "hindsight"?
Not also, you should have looked it up:
noun
1.
the ability to understand, after something has happened, what should have been done or what caused the event
It doesn't matter where he came from. The argument is the same. No matter where he was he could not know if someone saw and reported him.
What were his options John? Wait in front from of the shoe store or walk down the street in front of cops that were looking for him. No matter what he did you are making the same argument just for sake of argument.
It has everything to do with hindsight and you just can't grasp it.
So now you think Oswald should have been worried about a store clerk ( that we don't even know if he noticed ) while cop cars are drving around.
They were claims made by the DPD. You have no way of showing that LHO ever uttered them.
Wrong. It's your standard of proof that is insane. You believe that something is probably true, but you don't even know why.
Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.
Similar:
>Henry Ford: You can have any color as long as it's black.
>Orwell's Animal Farm 'All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others'
>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.
And so on.
Man, your standard-of-proof level is downright insane
If you have an opinion about that, you surely must have one about just how low the standard of proof should be.
So please tell us all; just how much should be ignored and dismissed to achieve the standard of proof you prefer?
Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.
So, it's "believe the official story or you commit a fallacy"?
Btw, does your comment expose that you believe everything you are told by authority and have no mind of your own?
>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.
Who said that? I'm sure John never did, there is no "probably" about it!
But why don't you answer the question I asked you?
The 'rebel' fallacy points directly at CTers
Appeal to Rebellion fallacy defined
Cite: warp.pov.net
Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.
As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."
People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.
This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.
Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They [conspiracy theorists] want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.
This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory:
In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you! (In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!)
Man, your standard-of-proof level is downright insane
If you have an opinion about that, you surely must have one about just how low the standard of proof should be.
So please tell us all; just how much should be ignored and dismissed to achieve the standard of proof you prefer?
I don't need a cut/paste explanation of the fallacy.
I would like you to answer my questions. Why don't you?
Here are the questions again;
Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.
So, it's "believe the official story or you commit a fallacy"?
Btw, does your comment expose that you believe everything you are told by authority and have no mind of your own?
Edit: as Tom has already pointed out, there is a massive difference between not just believing what the Government tells you and believing anything you want except what the Government tells you.
>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.
Who said that? I'm sure John never did, there is not even a "probably" about it!
But why don't you answer the question I asked you?
Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.
>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.
Who said that? I'm sure John never did, there is not even a "probably" about it!
I don't know that anybody has said that ...("You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.")
But I'll certainly second that idea....Because we KNOW that Lee Oswald was NOT wearing light colored khaki clothing and eye witnesses swore that the man on the sixth floor WAS wearing light colored clothing.....
Therefore we have demonstrated that Lee Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter....so unless you're a real loon ...
You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.
There's no reason to believe any story that can't be backed up with sufficient evidence. Calling it "official" isn't evidence. Saying that it came from the "U.S. Government" isn't evidence.
While you're looking up logical fallacies, I suggest you take a peek at "false appeal to authority".
There's no amount of evidence that would be accepted by you lot
How would you know? You have yet to provide any.
The LNer 101 response. IF they really had evidence worthy of the name it wouldn't matter what CTers said, but they don't. End of story.
CTer canned response 101. Ask for evidence, be given evidence, dismiss all evidence as the product of fakery and lies, suggest the burden is on others to dissuade you of these fantasies.
After looking over the films War is Hell and Cry of Battle which I secured I would have to say my opinion is that Oswald either went to the Theater as part of the operation or was lured to the Theater not knowing why, because I believe there is significant reason to believe that attention was being drawn to these films, and to ask why are we not supposed to consider that possibility by the so-called informed?
Bill Chapman when you go around dismissing CT's as an identifiable pathology, you need some markers for such a diagnosis One prime criteria of course would be a lack of a simple investigatory spirit and consistent principles Lets just go with the investigatory spirit aspect Do you really believe that if we were to add the depth of understandings within the CT community it would be less that of LN's ? For the LN the story is already wrapped in a tight little package and the need to investigating beyond the wrappers is of little purpose Of course that is not likely to be demonstrable, but even here we see people such as yourself coming up with all kinds of reasons for the facts from CT's to not be as reliable as others Or we must answer a series of question requiring conclusions of various types before we can just consider evidence in a prima facie manner I see very little psycho pathologizing of the zombie follower approach of how individuals relate to authority if we wish to wrap things in clear container
First off, I'm not asking this to provoke a fight. I'm just curious as to what some think about Oswald going to the movies, after the President was shot at, from the building he worked in. Some of the TSBD employees left after the shooting, but he was the only one not to return. He went home got his revolver and then went to the movies. Just seems like an odd thing to do, after something as historical as the president getting shot at, happened in front of where he worked.
It is a foundational question at the heart of the terrible attack.
Lee went to the theater because that's where he'd been told to meet his contact......As Walt did not elaborate and every thread goes in a thousand directions....
Some witnesses have other accounts of what happened in the cinema that afternoon. Burroughs, assistant manager, told the author Jim Marrs that someone had slipped into the theatre at 1.35pm that day But that person was not Oswald, who arrived shortly after the main feature at 1pm. At about 1.15pm this man went to the concession stand to buy popcorn. This was the man subsequently arrested by police after a scuffle. Burroughs said that Oswald had behaved oddly. In an almost empty theatre, he had sat down next to several cinema-goers in turn. The last a pregnant woman who disappeared up to a women?s restroom never to go back to her seat.MORE........
Burroughs?s story was backed up by someone called Jack Davis, who went on to become a local celebrity and radio host, but back in 1963 was an 18-year-old who had come to watch a war movie. He was surprised that the man (whom he subsequently realised was Oswald) came up and sat right next to him in the dark, almost empty theatre. Oswald did not say a word but after some minutes got up and sat next to yet another customer ? and did it once again. Later, when the lights came on, he left to see the manager ? heard the scuffle at the back of the theatre, and the man who had sat next to him during the performance was bundled out by a couple of policemen.
The facts are that Oswald was there and which movies were playing. Since I have evaluated the cinema leaders who scripted the crime, as well as the script, in my research, the unknowns fit as unknown descriptors concerning a very obvious physical arrangement. This arrangement plays out by criminalizing the truth and terrorizing independent journalism by processes that can only be described as ripper hatter mayhem.
Is it really being suggested that some new names need to be added to the long line of conspirators? Are managers at the TT now suspects because of the movies they chose to screen on that day?
Day of the Jackal proves how serious the Confederate taunting from Hollywood is. Watch ALL movies with closed captions. You miss 90% of the affinity project they've posted in the interlude by trusting to ear.
Simply, Oswald never expected to get out of the TSBD alive and had no game plan. Everything after the killing was spontaneous. He left Marina money and his wedding ring for a reason. He never expected to see her again. This is conscientious of guilt and common sense based on the evidence.
When finally apprehended, he lied all weekend to DPD and his own brother with ? Don?t believe the evidence? comment. It?s the best he could come up with.
Having just killed the President, Oswald, who didn't expect to get out of the TSBD alive, suddenly finds himself outside the building, free as a bird and being able to go anywhere.
But, rather than trying to escape he spontaneously decides not to do so and instead take a walk in Oak Cliff.....
Yeah right, as if that makes a lot of sense
So he merely 'takes a walk' does he... and was arrested for 'looking funny' and not buying a ticket
Yeah, right
Well, he supposedly turned up walking down 10th street, didn't he?
Have you been there? I seriously doubt it, because if you had you would know it's a go nowhere street in the middle of an insignificant neighborhood. What else but taking a walk do you suggest he was doing there?
Simply, Oswald never expected to get out of the TSBD alive and had no game plan. Everything after the killing was spontaneous. He left Marina money and his wedding ring for a reason. He never expected to see her again. This is conscientious of guilt and common sense based on the evidence.
When finally apprehended, he lied all weekend to DPD and his own brother with ? Don?t believe the evidence? comment. It?s the best he could come up with.
Don't agree Paul. Oswald was emboldened by the fact that he fired at General Walker (and missed) in April 1963 and the Dallas Police never had a clue (literally) who was the shooter.
Lee Oswald probably estimated he could kill President Kennedy with one shot. In that event, nobody may have witnessed the shooter and his location. Keep in mind that Oswald hurried down the back stairs of the TSBD... presumably intending to go out the back door near the loading dock. It may seem logical to you and me that we'd have no chance of escape after killing the President in broad daylight: Not Oswald. After he shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit he muttered: "Poor dumb cop". An arrogant individual like Lee Harvey Oswald would likely think: "I'll get away with the crime of the century". Alternately, I'll lead the cops on a merry chase until they catch me. He was "playing it by ear" up to and until he went into the Texas Theater.
To answer the question posed by the subject of this debate: Oswald did not go to the movies (an entertainment). Oswald went to the theater (a building) to hide from his pursuers.
I thought you lot said he was going to a movie
Guess he thought the theatre was on a 'go nowhere' street
But okay, sure, Martin... he was just 'out for a walk'
;)
CTers claim Oswald went to the theatre to see a movie, not to hide from anyone.
`You lot`... who would that be? Be precise!
I thought you lot said he was going to a movie
Some people do indeed say that.
Guess he thought the theatre was on a 'go nowhere' street
I imagine the same people who say Oswald went to a movie also say he was not at 10th/Patton.
But okay, sure, Martin... he was just 'out for a walk'
Since he had no obvious purpose to be at 10th street, do you have any idea what he was doing there?
It seems a pretty silly thing to do, walking down a 'go nowhere' street just after having killed the President, don't you think?
Actually, only some people claim he want to see a movie. Others believe he went there for a meeting with his CIA handler
Don't agree Paul. Oswald was emboldened by the fact that he fired at General Walker (and missed) in April 1963 and the Dallas Police never had a clue (literally) who was the shooter.
Lee Oswald probably estimated he could kill President Kennedy with one shot. In that event, nobody may have witnessed the shooter and his location. Unexpectedly he took three. Keep in mind that Oswald hurried down the back stairs of the TSBD... presumably intending to go out the back door near the loading dock. It may seem logical to you and me that we'd have no chance of escape after killing the President in broad daylight: Not Oswald. After he shot and killed Officer J.D. Tippit he muttered: "Poor dumb cop". An arrogant individual like Lee Harvey Oswald would likely think: "I'll get away with the crime of the century". Alternately, I'll lead the cops on a merry chase until they catch me. He was "playing it by ear" up to and until he went into the Texas Theater.
To answer the question posed by the subject of this debate: Oswald did not go to the movies (an entertainment). Oswald went to the theater (a building) to hide from his pursuers.
`You lot`... who would that be? Be precise!
`You lot`... who would that be? Be precise!
I thought you lot said he was going to a movie
Some people do indeed say that.
Guess he thought the theatre was on a 'go nowhere' street
I imagine the same people who say Oswald went to a movie also say he was not at 10th/Patton.
But okay, sure, Martin... he was just 'out for a walk'
Since he had no obvious purpose to be at 10th street, do you have any idea what he was doing there?
It seems a pretty silly thing to do, walking down a 'go nowhere' street just after having killed the President, don't you think?
Actually, only some people claim he want to see a movie. Others believe he went there for a meeting with his CIA handler
-- Why didn't Oswald go directly to the movies (Texas Theater) after leaving the TSBD rather than going home first?
Obvious answer based on his actual actions is that he wanted to get changed out of dusty\dirty work clothes into more casual clothes. He went to the boarding house got changed and then went out, seems like a normal set of actions.
-- Why did Oswald take a revolver to the movies (Texas Theater)?
LN Answer - As the shooter, he wanted to use it to avoid arrest, like he did at the Tippet scene.
CT Answer - 1) He had worked out that he had been set up, and was scared or 2) He was just being a lad and carrying a gun made him feel more macho. or 3) It wasn't his
I've always wondered why not take it in the morning, when he was going to do the actual shooting.
Perhaps Lee Harvey Oswald considered the possibility of law-enforcement checking everyone who entered the TSBD. Lee would not like to be found to have a rifle "and" a hand-gun in a building on the President's motorcade route?
Oswald could have contemplated the possibility of being stopped from leaving the TSBD after he shot President Kennedy. If not for Truly vouching for Oswald, Officer Baker would have searched him.
It seems to me that Oswald carrying a revolver in the TSBD Friday morning would have been risky. He was shrewd enough to know that.
He had a CIA handler?
Oh, yeah a lot of people say that, don't they Martin...
It's fascinating the way people make up a narrative, attach the word "probably" to it and act like that's what actually happened.John,
Perhaps Lee Harvey Oswald considered the possibility of law-enforcement checking everyone who entered the TSBD. Lee would not like to be found to have a rifle "and" a hand-gun in a building on the President's motorcade route?
So it wouldn't have mattered to Oswald if he was checked carrying only a rifle. It would only be a problem if he had a rifle and a revolver. Is that really what you are saying?
Oswald could have contemplated the possibility of being stopped from leaving the TSBD after he shot President Kennedy. If not for Truly vouching for Oswald, Officer Baker would have searched him.
How in the world would you even know what Baker would have done without the intervention of Truly?
And your logic seems contradictory. The purpose for carrying the revolver would be to defend himself against arrest, right? Yet you seem to claim that he didn't take the revolver to the TSBD because of the possibility of being stopped from leaving the TSBD. But isn't possibly being stopped the main reason for taking a revolver to aid him to get away?
It seems to me that Oswald carrying a revolver in the TSBD Friday morning would have been risky.
More risky than carrying a rifle?
He was shrewd enough to know that.
How do you know this? Did you know him personally?
He was bored and had a sudden craving for a bucket of buttered popcorn.These investigative contributions are invaluable. By all means continue with this tremendously dedicated research.
These investigative contributions are invaluable. By all means continue with this tremendously dedicated research.
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Throw in the added benefit of being able to window shop for shoes en route to the theater and it's a no-brainer.
Martin,
It's worse to have two firearms than one. Oswald could have claimed that he was taking the disassembled rifle to a gun-shop for repair. Two guns has an aura of "armed-to-the-teeth". Not a good look when the President was going to drive by the TSBD later in the day.
It's reasonable to surmise what Officer Baker would have done if he (minus Truly) encountered Oswald "moving away from him" in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Frisk the suspect for a weapon is standard Police practice. Agree?
Oswald may have declined to take the revolver to work on Friday 22 November 1963 because of the "previous day" logistics that would be necessary to do that. Taking the S&W revolver to the Paine's on Thursday afternoon meant a risk of Marina spotting the handgun and being suspicious of the reason for him carrying the weapon. You know: Walker, Nixon (the vice-president) etc.
Oswald'd past life demonstrates his shrewdness.
-- Conning Soviet officials into letting him stay in the USSR.
-- His calm though deceptive performance on Radio in New Orleans.
Oswald'd past life demonstrates his shrewdness.But why did he go to the movie?
Oswald could have contemplated the possibility of being stopped from leaving the TSBD after he shot President Kennedy. If not for Truly vouching for Oswald, Officer Baker would have searched him.
It seems to me that Oswald carrying a revolver in the TSBD Friday morning would have been risky. He was shrewd enough to know that.
I was conveying to Paul May my opinion; not making up a narrative to deceive. It's more honest to say "probably" than not. Perhaps you should use that "adverb" occasionally, John.
It's reasonable to surmise what Officer Baker would have done if he (minus Truly) encountered Oswald "moving away from him" in the 2nd floor lunchroom. Frisk the suspect for a weapon is standard Police practice. Agree?
-- His calm though deceptive performance on Radio in New Orleans.
These investigative contributions are invaluable. By all means continue with this tremendously dedicated research.
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Yep. He told Marina that morning and again the following day to buy June new shoes but didn't mention that he'd been looking at shoes for June when Brewer spotted him. It was all a misunderstanding. :D
Yes, it's much more rational to look at a guy looking in the windows of a shoe store and think "just killed a cop".
Or to find him suspicious because of his reaction to hearing sirens approaching?
Or to find him suspicious because of his reaction to hearing sirens approaching?
What reaction? He just "looked scared and funny" whatever that means.
Yes, it's much more rational to look at a guy looking in the windows of a shoe store and think "just killed a cop".
Yes, but the Oswald defenders say you can't look at the entire context of his actions. Instead, each of his actions have to be considered in isolation and stripped from any context in which he acted. It's like Oswald acting in a giant isolated bubble with nothing going on.
Here, he was just looking at shoes. All of the other incidents around him must not be included.
He just left the TSBD. He just caught a bus. He just caught a cab. He just went to his room. He just walked down the street. He just looked at shoes. He just went into a theater. This is how you're supposed to judge his actions.
I meant looking scared.
Yes, it's much more rational to look at a guy looking in the windows of a shoe store and think "just killed a cop".
Yes, but the Oswald defenders say you can't look at the entire context of his actions. Instead, each of his actions have to be considered in isolation and stripped from any context in which he acted. It's like Oswald acting in a giant isolated bubble with nothing going on.
Here, he was just looking at shoes. All of the other incidents around him must not be included.
He just left the TSBD. He just caught a bus. He just caught a cab. He just went to his room. He just walked down the street. He just looked at shoes. He just went into a theater. This is how you're supposed to judge his actions.
Yes, it's much more rational to look at a guy looking in the windows of a shoe store and think "just killed a cop".
This fabricated story was created to involve Brewer when the actual evidence shows that he was most likely not involved.
As is typical of many or most JFK blogs/forums in 2018, the very same questions were asked 55 years ago. The "WHY" questions. They never cease because we, the public will never have the answers. Hence, we all speculate. WHY did LHO go to the movie theater? WHY did LHO leave his wedding ring and $ for Marina on 11/22? Thousands more why questions. And the responses? No different than 55 years ago. When LHO died, so did the answers yet people refuse to accept that. Ok. Yet, what hasn't changed is the evidence in the case. Nothing hard, nor credible in 55 years of conspiracy. Could there have been one? Absolutely. Can anybody prove one? Absolutely not. People ask, why would LHO shoot Kennedy? People say he liked and admired JFK. IMO, and ONLY mo, Oswald wasn't shooting at Kennedy. He didn't see Kennedy. What he did see was the POTUS and all that represented in the world. Oswald wanted to change history. How better to do that than kill the POTUS?
Maybe on Planet CK it would be rational to ignore someone someone ducking into the alcove of your store as police cars go by and not have your suspicions aroused,
If that's your best take on the events surrounding the capture of the cop killer then you will have to repeat third grade again. Do try harder next time.
That's an excellent summation of the CT method. Of course such a defense would be laughed out of court. Any half decent prosecutor would construct a narrative that connects the evidence in a logical fashion leaving the defense with a pile of parts that simply can't be constructed into a satisfactory account.
Of course Oswald would appeal on the grounds that his attorney was an idiot but that would simply delay the obvious i.e. guilty on two counts of murder.
Excuse me, when did Brewer say "ducking"?
What actual evidence is that?
Perhaps Lee Harvey Oswald considered the possibility of law-enforcement checking everyone who entered the TSBD. Lee would not like to be found to have a rifle "and" a hand-gun in a building on the President's motorcade route?
Oswald could have contemplated the possibility of being stopped from leaving the TSBD after he shot President Kennedy. If not for Truly vouching for Oswald, Officer Baker would have searched him.
It seems to me that Oswald carrying a revolver in the TSBD Friday morning would have been risky. He was shrewd enough to know that.
What reaction? He just "looked scared and funny" whatever that means.
He didn't have to, but you're excused anyway.
Maybe on Planet CK it would be rational to ignore someone someone ducking into the alcove of your store as police cars go by and not have your suspicions aroused
How does anyone know for sure that Oswald didn't have his hand gun at work that day?
I doubt that he did, but there is no conclusive way to know for certain. To get his handgun to the TSBD on Friday, Oswald would to have taken it to work with him on Thursday, hid it all day, smuggled it with him on his trip to Irving, hid it at the Paine home that night, taken it back with him on Friday morning.
Oswald has no real need for a handgun that morning. He has his hands full pulling off the assassination. He has a loaded rifle as he escapes the 6th floor. If he needs to shoot anyone, he does so with his rifle.
Once he is off the floor, he is just another employee in the building. And in the end, we don't need to know why to accept his guilt in the assassination. The evidence proves he did it.
scared
fearful, frightened, panicky, panic-stricken, petrified, scared sh*tless, shaken, sh*t scared
1. funny haha
2. funny strange, odd, unusual, especially in such a way as to arouse suspicion.
eg: ?there was something funny going on'
That's the whole problem. The prosecution "constructs a narrative" first, and then desperately tries to shoehorn the evidence into that narrative. There's nothing logical about it.
Where does this false bravado that all LNs seem to possess come from? Do you really think that makes your argument more compelling?
Actually, it's sceptics that come with their preconceptions, find that those preconceptions don't fit the facts, and then declare the facts faked.
scared
fearful, frightened, panicky, panic-stricken, petrified, scared sh*tless, shaken, sh*t scared
1. funny haha
2. funny strange, odd, unusual, especially in such a way as to arouse suspicion.
eg: ?there was something funny going on'
The record is clear that Brewer found Oswald suspicious and that led to his arrest. It is hard to understand the relevance of calling into question Brewer's motives for finding Oswald suspicious. Even if some contrarian believes that Brewer's explanation for doing so isn't satisfactory, why does that matter unless they are implying that Brewer was a conspirator playing a role in the plot to lead the police to Oswald? If not and the implication of a conspiracy in questioning Brewer's motives is a "strawman", then Brewer's reasons - whether reasonable or unreasonable - for concluding that Oswald was acting suspiciously doesn't seem to matter. At best, all you are claiming is that Brewer acted differently than you would expect under the circumstances. So what?
My comment was based on the actual evidence.
Hard to understand? What made Brewer competent to judge what makes someone suspicious in regards to murder?
Even you must realize that this would have been brought up at trial had there been one.
Actually, it's sceptics that come with their preconceptions, find that those preconceptions don't fit the facts, and then declare the facts faked.
Hurts that Brewer's alert and swift reaction resulted in Saint Patsy's apprehension, eh Johnny ?
Has you spinning like a top trying to explain why Brewer suspected your client.
Sucks being you.
How about you explain it? Even if Brewer's suspicion was unfounded in your subjective opinion, what possible difference would it make as to Oswald's guilt in a trial or otherwise? Brewer's suspicion only led to his arrest. The only relevance that discussion has is if you or your contrarian sidekick are alleging that Brewer's suspicion was a product of a conspiracy (i.e. Brewer was part of the plot to frame Oswald and somehow your fantasy conspirators conveniently ensured that Oswald walked down his street and recruited Brewer to point him out). An absurd premise.
That's right.
Iacoletti is becoming an even bigger idiot as the days go by. Whatever it takes, no matter how preposterous Iacoletti is is prepared to say it if in his alternate universe he thinks he can muddy the waters.
He has no shame.
The entire narrative of Oswald as soon as he left the Depository immediately after the assassination is only indicative of guilt. But the Texas Theater is perhaps the most damning because the evidence cannot be disputed and hence the absurd attempts at refutation.
Oswald was observed avoiding cops.
Oswald snuck into the Theater.
Oswald punched a police officer.
Oswald was carrying a revolver.
Oswald tried to use the revolver.
No, Oswald was observed looking in a window. Everything else was conjecture.
Nobody observed Oswald sneaking in to any theater.
Possibly he took a swing in self-defence. But it's disputed who threw the first punch.
Also disputed. Only Nick "captor of Oswald" "serial teller of falsehoods" McDonald ever claimed to see a revolver on Oswald at the theater.
Also conjecture. There was a click or a snapping noise at a time when several hands were on the gun and it was pointed at a 45 degree angle toward the screen.
But exactly none of these claims, even if they happen to be true (and you haven't demonstrated them to be anything but empty claims), tell you anything about who killed Kennedy or Tippit.
No, Oswald was observed looking in a window. Everything else was conjecture.
Nobody observed Oswald sneaking in to any theater.
Possibly he took a swing in self-defence. But it's disputed who threw the first punch.
Also disputed. Only Nick "captor of Oswald" "serial teller of falsehoods" McDonald ever claimed to see a revolver on Oswald at the theater.
Also conjecture. There was a click or a snapping noise at a time when several hands were on the gun and it was pointed at a 45 degree angle toward the screen.
But exactly none of these claims, even if they happen to be true (and you haven't demonstrated them to be anything but empty claims), tell you anything about who killed Kennedy or Tippit.
So much rubbish in one post. An excellent example of Iacoletti's shameless lies.
If Oswald had gone to trial I would have loved for someone just like him to have defended Oswald. The killer would have been fried quicker than a bucket of chicken.
I would think, given that Brewer had heard about the assassination and the murder of Tippit, that if someone stepped into the lobby of his shop when there were police sirens in the area, stared ahead with his back to the street, then left when the sirens were moving away, that being a bit suspicious of that man would be quite understandable.
Hard to understand? What made Brewer competent to judge what makes someone suspicious in regards to murder?
It's a case of the cold willies. Once you git'm n'you can just tell.
So again you attack the eyewitnesses who were actually there and saw the events with their own eyes and then attempt to insert your own narrative. WOW!
JohnM
Ever useful as always.
Those who can't argue the facts and evidence just insult the opposition and hope that nobody else notices.
.. an alert citizen ...Another ounce of luck? ...to add to the tons of great fortune which had already transpired.
So again you attack the eyewitnesses who were actually there and saw the events with their own eyes and then attempt to insert your own narrative. WOW!
So much rubbish in one post. An excellent example of Iacoletti's shameless lies.
If Oswald had gone to trial I would have loved for someone just like him to have defended Oswald. The killer would have been fried quicker than a bucket of chicken.
This speculation about LHO?s movements after the shooting has (sigh) been discussed 55 years with no definitive resolution. It will be raised for another 50 years....with no resolution. So the point AGAIN discussing it is what? To hear the very same opinions and speculations over and over again? What am I missing here?
Clearly what Dishonest John I. is doing is trying to imply that Brewer was acting in some nefarious manner but without acknowledging that because of the obvious absurdity of that position.
An intellectually dishonest approach. Not unlike knowing someone posted in a certain thread but then claiming they did not because the thread had been deleted and they believed no one could "prove" otherwise.
Another non-answer as always
Those who can only make fun of an alert citizen who deemed that the 'guy' looking in his window was acting strange are only here to insult reasonable people... and hope that newbies don't notice.
There was a question?
Who are you, "Richard" Junior? Who made fun of Brewer?
Iacoletti #452
'What reaction? He just "looked scared and funny" whatever that means.'
'whatever that means'
You said "another non-answer". What is it you're wanting me to answer?
You are intent upon minimizing Brewer's enormously valuable contribution in this matter. You have repeatedly claimed that the DPD only went to the TT because 'a shoe salesman' saw 'a guy' who looked 'funny'.
Tell us which dictionary version of 'funny' most applies here, John.
see post #511
You're weird. There isn't a single question mark in what you posted in post 511.
What made him a "suspect"? And where did they even get this "information"?
Actually I don't think I've ever made that particular claim, but feel free to cite it if I have.
What I do think is that the police considered Brewer's man a "suspect" for no other reason than that. They said so on the police radio.
Dispatcher 10-4. We have information that a suspect just went in the Texas Theater on West Jefferson.
79 10-4.
Dispatcher Supposed to be hiding in the balcony.
What made him a "suspect"? And where did they even get this "information"? Julia Postal stayed outside and Johnny Brewer looked in the balcony and the main theater and didn't see him before he came out and told Postal to call the police. How'd they get "hiding in the balcony"?
What evidence do you mean?
How about you explain it? Even if Brewer's suspicion was unfounded in your subjective opinion, what possible difference would it make as to Oswald's guilt in a trial or otherwise? Brewer's suspicion only led to his arrest. The only relevance that discussion has is if you or your contrarian sidekick are alleging that Brewer's suspicion was a product of a conspiracy (i.e. Brewer was part of the plot to frame Oswald and somehow your fantasy conspirators conveniently ensured that Oswald walked down his street and recruited Brewer to point him out). An absurd premise.
The entire narrative of Oswald as soon as he left the Depository immediately after the assassination is only indicative of guilt. But the Texas Theater is perhaps the most damning because the evidence cannot be disputed and hence the absurd attempts at refutation.
Oswald was observed avoiding cops.
Oswald snuck into the Theater.
Oswald punched a police officer.
Oswald was carrying a revolver.
Oswald tried to use the revolver.
JohnM
Show us where Brewer attached anything but (what he perceived as) suspicious behaviour to the guy he saw looking in his window.
This nonsense is like the alleged lunchroom encounter. Why was LHO the ONLY person that everyone was focused on supposedly? How many other people could have been "acting funny" if they were the focus of Brewer's attention?
There is no way his story is accurate nor was he qualified to tell what was suspicious or not. In any other emergency situation the police would get hundreds of tips like this and could NOT respond in force to all of them. Why did they show up at the TT in force?
The DPD received a good number of tips that lead to things other than LHO, but they never followed them at all or very far. Why is that?
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?
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.
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.
Good grief. When and where did he call the police? Be specific and use the evidence.
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.
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.
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.
Who made the call? Be specific and use the evidence.
So, you're admitting that you are not familiar with the evidence. Good of you to do that.
LOL. We are going down the usual Caprio rabbit hole. Are you now claiming the DPD did not receive a call? Is Postal involved in the plot as well and lying about calling the police? I have to be "specific and use evidence" for a point that is a matter of record? While you will not answer a simple question as to whether you are claiming Brewer was part of a plot.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338516/m1/1/
Why not just say what evidence you were referring too? As I've said I don't claim to be an expert and have come back to this topic some tears after my initial interest. I had hoped to have some sensible discussions here but everyone seems to be locked into their positions and into having a go at each other.
Why don't you state what your issue is and perhaps I can help you. Unless you are locked into your position of course.
You're the weird one:
You stated 'whatever that means' in relation to 'scared and looking funny'
Duh.
Brewer felt Saint Patsy was trying to evade the cops.
You're just going to have to accept that your client was apprehended due to Brewer's alert and swift reaction.
Trying to imply that Brewer's actions were irrational and that the police response to Postal's call was unwarranted makes you look....uhhhh....'funny'
Hurts, doesn't it ?
Wasn't that because Burroughs had thought he must have gone up to tye balcony because he hadn't seen him go past him? Based on previous experiences of kids sneaking in to the theatre going up to the balcony seemed most likely.
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?
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.
Still trying to find the question you're wanting me to answer.
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.
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,
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.
Seems kind of odd that Saint Patsy isn't even slightly interested in what happened, but maybe that's just me.
No time to waste, so why hang around for even a moment ? There was shoe shopping to be done. And then Gummy Bears and buttered popcorn. Saint Patsy just got an early start to the weekend. It's just not fair to read anything else into it.
Keep in mind that Postal never actually saw this person acting suspiciously and most likely never saw him at all.
Police radio description of Tippit suspect:
"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,"
Postal's description to dispatcher of the funny guy Brewer told her he saw:
"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"
Why don't you try responding to what people actually say rather than what you think they are "clearly implying"? You have a lousy track record for mind reading.
LOL. We are going down the usual Caprio rabbit hole. Are you now claiming the DPD did not receive a call? Is Postal involved in the plot as well and lying about calling the police? I have to be "specific and use evidence" for a point that is a matter of record? While you will not answer a simple question as to whether you are claiming Brewer was part of a plot.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338516/m1/1/
LOL. We are now going down the Smith "shift the burden" path. You HAVE TO show that a call took place alerting the police to the LHO alleged sighting. Well?
Who called? Be specific and use the evidence.
The definition of 'looking funny' you are applying here.
You mean like you telling us what witnesses saw?and didn't see? in the TT? Got it.
This is very simple. If you are not alleging that Brewer was acting for nefarious reasons, then what is the purpose of questioning his motives for finding Oswald suspicious?
Just you, Saint Logical Fallacy. And your other irrational brethren who think that's evidence for murder.
Why present a logical argument with evidence when you can just be sarcastic and insulting instead?
They had no choice but to respond as though this MIGHT be their murder suspect. He might have turned out not to be the guy. Like the guy at the library. Instead he starts a fight and pulls a gun.
Not in and of itself. You refuse to acknowledge that. You are making yourself look a troll, nothing else. You're alarmingly desperate;
'And your other irrational brethren who think that's evidence for murder.'
Not in and of itself. You refuse to acknowledge that. You are making yourself look a troll, nothing else. You're alarmingly desperate; worse than you've ever been IMO. You and your brethren are living in The Land of Irrationality.
Dishonest John is really losing it. He just suggested that he didn't question Brewer's motives and in the very same post questions Brewer's motives for finding Oswald suspicious.
But, of course, he is not implying anything nefarious! LOL.
He could clear this up by telling us why it matters whether Brewer's suspicion was reasonable or not if he is not implying anything nefarious.
Even assuming that his nutty premise was correct - that Brewer had no real basis to find Oswald suspicious - it doesn't matter if Brewer is acting unreasonably but for no nefarious purpose.
I do wonder what's so suspicious about looking in a shoe store window and what he did that was interpreted as "acting scared". Brewer never really elaborated.
I do wonder what's so suspicious about looking in a shoe store window and what he did that was interpreted as "acting scared". Brewer never really elaborated.
There you go again... separating, hitting the pause button, reducing each moment in time down to a screenshot.
Somebody thinks that supposedly "not being interested in what happened" is evidence of murder, and I'm the one who's desperate? Please.
Enlighten me, O wise one. What combination of moments in Brewer's time collectively made this man "suspicious" to Brewer? Did Brewer elaborate in some other way that I'm just not familiar with? Or are you just grandstanding again?
How does Saint Brewer's observation make anyone a murder suspect?
The only thing that hurts is what you think passes for a logical argument.
But Brewer said that he and Butch went up to the balcony and didn't see anything.
I don't have an issue, other than with the fact you won't answer a simple question but would rather be confrontational and difficult. Just forget all about it and I'll make a note never to respond to one of your posts again.
You have dragged this on for so long instead of simply asking your question again. Why is that? You seem to be the difficult one.
Huh? I've already answered that and you already know that Postal called the DPD. I posted her affidavit confirming that she called the DPD to report a suspicious person had entered the TT without buying a ticket. What exactly are you claiming? Do you have any type of coherent point? Maybe we could move this along if you could just tell us what it is that you are suggesting. That Postal and Brewer were part of the conspiracy? That no one called the DPD? I don't understand the reluctance to state your point if you have one instead of going around in pointless circles.
I do wonder what's so suspicious about looking in a shoe store window and what he did that was interpreted as "acting scared". Brewer never really elaborated.
There you go again... separating, hitting the pause button, reducing each moment in time down to a screenshot.
This is very simple. If you are not alleging that Brewer was acting for nefarious reasons, then what is the purpose of questioning his motives for finding Oswald suspicious? Even if you believe his suspicion was unfounded, why does it matter? If Brewer thought Oswald was acting suspiciously (even if he was not) it doesn't change the narrative one iota. Brewer believed - rightly or wrongly - that Oswald was suspicious and that ultimately led to the chain of events resulting in his arrest. So what?
First of all, Postal never saw the man, allegedly LHO, enter the TT. Secondly, IF Postal did call the police it wasn't because of the JDT mureder.
Mr. POSTAL. ...And they raced in, and the next thing I knew, they were carrying----well, that is when I first heard Officer Tippit had been shot because some officer came in the box office and used the phone, said, "I think we have got our man on both accounts." "What two accounts?" And said, "Well, Officer Tippit's," shocked me, because Officer Tippit used to work part time for us years ago. I didn't know him personally.
She didn't know about JDT's murder UNTIL the police arrived. Also, how did the police know that they had their man on BOTH COUNTS that fast?
Hmmmmmm, that's a tough one, but I'll take a shot at it.
See if you can follow along, goofy.
A cop is murdered and a search is on for the perp.
Brewer sees someone enter his storefront as the cops are passing by and gets the feeling this person is trying to evade them.
The person who is trying to evade the cops becomes a suspect in the murder of JDT.
Brewer alertly keeps an eye on Saint Patsy as he strolls towards the theater and then disappears.
The rest is history. Saint Patsy busted !
Your continual attempt to paint Brewer's actions as irrational and the police response as unwarranted is nothing short of moronic.
Brewer hero Iacoletti zero.
How about answering the simple question that I posed? Why are you questioning whether the DPD received a phone call reporting a suspicious person? Are you implying they did not and that Postal and Brewer were part of a plot to frame Oswald? Hard to understand your reluctance to imply something but then not confirm it.
This is simple. I ask whether Brewer was actually involved at all as claimed. Nothing "nefarious" about it. That is your game to divert from the real issue.
Brutal nonsense. That is the best you can do? Even if she didn't see Oswald or know about the Tippit murder, that doesn't mean she didn't call the DPD. LOL. Is that what you are suggesting? How about just saying whether or not you are claiming a random ticket seller was in on the plot? Why is that so hard? In her affidavit, Postal confirms that she called the DPD to report a person who had entered the TT without buying a ticket in an apparent attempt to elude police who were flying up and down the road right in front of her. Part of that information came from Brewer. She knew the police were looking for someone and that president had been killed. Again, the DPD had no idea "that they had their man" when they received this report. What they had was a report of a suspicious person in the vicinity of the murder. They responded to that report as though it MIGHT be their suspect. They had to do that for their own safety until they could check him out and confirm whether or not he was their suspect. Just like they did with the guy at the library. This is weak sauce even by your prior low standards.
Can you translate that into a coherent response? "Was actually involved" in what? Are you saying Brewer's role was entirely made up for some reason and he didn't see Oswald or find him suspicious? That sounds a lot like a nefarious purpose if you are suggesting he lied about this. So what is the narrative behind this outlandish fantasy? The conspirators somehow recruit a random shoe salesman and ticket seller in Dallas hoping Oswald walks down that street and enters the movie theatre so they can call the police (which you have implied they didn't do). LOL. That is tin foil hat territory.
How about you paying attention? I have already answered the question. It is *your* responsibility to support the WC's claim since you support it. Who called the DPD stating that LHO was the man acting suspiciously?
Be specific and use the evidence.
Brutal nonsense. So you are claiming that Postal called the DPD about the man that she never saw because she thought he was the killer of JFK? How far away is the TT from DP?
Is there anyone who can assist Caprio here? He knows that the record indicates that Julia Postal called the DPD. I posted her affidavit confirming that she did so. That seems "specific" (who called - Julia Postal) and "uses evidence" (Postal's affidavit confirming she called the police). And yet Caprio responds over and over with this nonsense. Can anyone interpret this? If Caprio has cause to believe that Postal is lying, then why don't we move on to that? I can't fathom the purpose of his asking this same question over and over without elaboration as to the purpose when it has been answered. And the answer is a matter of the record that Caprio is already familiar with.
The facts are that the police were roaring up and down the street right in front of the TT. Postal knew the president had been assassinated a short distance away. I believe the distance from the TT to Dealey Plaza only is about three miles. Regardless, she didn't have to know that the man was the "killer of JFK." What she could see with her own eyes was the that the police were looking for someone on her street. Brewer tells her about the man. It doesn't take Nostradamus to conclude that someone entering the theatre without buying a ticket is acting suspiciously - particularly when Brewer is following the guy - and so she reports that to the police having no idea whether this is the guy they are looking for. Maybe he is and maybe he is not. All she knows is that the police are looking for someone in her vicinity and it has been brought to her attention that a person in her theatre is behaving suspiciously. She reports it and the police respond accordingly. All Oswald has to do is clear this up by explaining himself instead of punching a cop and pulling a gun. Your hero can't do that, however, because it turns out he is the cop killer and assassin. There is absolutely nothing here that is unclear or suspicious. It is a logical sequence of events.
All these words, but NO supporting evidence. No surprise there. Your main problem is -- she NEVER saw the man claimed to be LHO, therefore, she had NO way of knowing how he was acting.
Tell me why she thought a man that she never saw was a suspect in the killing of JFK when DP was miles away. Go ahead.
You have dragged this on for so long instead of simply asking your question again. Why is that? You seem to be the difficult one.
Her we go again. For the umpteenth time. Where did I ever say that any one of, say Bug53, were evidence of murder in and of their own?
You continue to ignore the context
Brewer sees someone enter his storefront as the cops are passing by and gets the feeling this person is trying to evade them.
The person who is trying to evade the cops becomes a suspect in the murder of JDT.
Yes, but it was dark and they didn't do a thorough search.
The DPD received a call reporting a suspicious person in the vicinity of a murder. They respond to that report as though this person MIGHT be their suspect.
If your client Oswald had been innocent, he could have explained himself exactly like the guy did in the library. Unfortunately for Oswald, he was guilty and decided to hit a police officer. Bingo. The cops have their suspect.
And remember, Dishonest John is not questioning Brewer's motives here or implying anything nefarious. LOL. He is just wondering for no apparent reason.
It doesn't take Nostradamus to conclude that someone entering the theatre without buying a ticket is acting suspiciously - particularly when Brewer is following the guy - and so she reports that to the police having no idea whether this is the guy they are looking for.
She reports it and the police respond accordingly.
All Oswald has to do is clear this up by explaining himself instead of punching a cop and pulling a gun.
Your hero can't do that, however, because it turns out he is the cop killer and assassin.
I did. She saw the police roaring up and down the road. She knew they were looking for someone.
Maybe the JFK assassin, maybe for something else. DP is all of three miles away! The important point is that she knew something was going on in her immediate vicinity. Brewer told her a guy had entered the theatre. She hadn't sold him a ticket.
She reports him to the police. What is so perplexing about this? How about you answer a question for once and tell us why you think she called the police if she had no basis to do so?
I did. She saw the police roaring up and down the road. She knew they were looking for someone. Maybe the JFK assassin, maybe for something else. DP is all of three miles away! The important point is that she knew something was going on in her immediate vicinity. Brewer told her a guy had entered the theatre. She hadn't sold him a ticket. She reports him to the police. What is so perplexing about this? How about you answer a question for once and tell us why you think she called the police if she had no basis to do so?
Ok, I'll give it one more go.
You said 'This fabricated story was created to involve Brewer when the actual evidence shows that he was most likely not involved.'
I asked 'What actual evidence is that?'
Perhaps you could clarify by saying what the fabricated story is, what the true story is, and what the evidence is relating to Brewer's involvement.
What did Brewer see that was "evading the cops"?
He stood there and "looked scared".
:D
Who said that?
I answered this question. The evidence showing that Brewer was involved in the events of November 22, 1963, does NOT exist in the twenty-six volumes outside of Brewer's claims during his testimony.
If you don't know this then you do NOT know the evidence. See, I *already* answered your question.
Looking scared would be enough.
You really need to stop trying to portray Brewer's actions as irrational and the resulting police response as unwarranted.
Doesn't matter if it was because he thought your hero looked funny, looked scared or just had a receding hairline. :D
Bottom line is Brewer thought Saint Patsy was acting suspicously and took the necessary action to get your client apprehended.
Sucks for you and your hero, but you're just going to have to accept it.
I believe they kept the film running and only put the lights up just before the police got there. Brewer said they went up to the balcony looked around but couldn't see anything. They had looked downstairs but Brewer said it was dark and that they couldn't see how many people were in there. Then they went upstairs but couldn't see anything.
So it's just your conjecture that the reason they couldn't see anything was because it was too dark, but that they still thought he was up there?
Enough for what?
Why? The resulting police response was unwarranted.
More useless rhetoric instead of evidence. How surprising.
The police response was warranted. Your client's arrest is proof of that. ;D
That's not useless rhetoric. That's a fact.
So you CANNOT show that she called the DPD as claimed. You also CANNOT show why she would think a man that she NEVER saw was a suspect in the JFK murder miles away. Got it.
I thought so.
In which we learn that "mindreading" is a necessary skill to conclude that when the police are buzzing all around you with sirens blaring that they are looking for someone.
I still haven't got a straight answer as to why Brewer and Postal would take these actions if they did not find Oswald to be suspicious but were not acting out of any nefarious purpose.
Why do you think I am asking you? If knew the evidence I wouldn't ask for it! Mine is a genuine question. The mind set displayed in your responses is very enlightening. I gave it one more go but that's it, you're off my Christmas card list.
Mindreading Lying "Richard" now turns his mad mindreading skilz on Julia Postal.
Utter nonsense. If police cars are roaring down the road they are on their way to some other destination. If they're "looking for someone" they stop and look for someone.
In which we learn that "mindreading" is a necessary skill to conclude that when the police are buzzing all around you with sirens blaring that they are looking for someone. And on the very day the president has been assassinated only three miles away. LOL. You can't make that sort of thing up. It is comedy gold. And if there were any doubt, Postal confirms in her testimony that she and her boss mentioned that things were about to bust while observing the police activity. It is embarrassing to see the lengths that dishonest John will go to protect Oswald.
I still haven't got a straight answer as to why Brewer and Postal would take these actions if they did not find Oswald to be suspicious but were not acting out of any nefarious purpose. How can their actions be explained? Did they make a prank call to the police? It's impossible to fill that Grand Canyon-like narrative void in which Brewer and Postal have no cause to take notice of Oswald, but call the DPD to report him as acting suspiciously with no nefarious intent on their part.
If you genuinely cared then you would learn the evidence, but, alas, you want me to spoon feed you instead. I am not going to waste my time.
You can draw any conclusion that you wish,
....but it is clear that you are a LNer.
LNers are not interested in the evidence....
because it fails to support the claims that they so wholeheartedly endorse.
I had the evidence up in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series, but it was removed due to the LNers constant complaints. See, LNers are not interested in the actual evidence found in the twenty-six volumes and CD's.
If you are genuinely and sincerely interested then check out the twenty-six volumes. Good luck.
Brilliant. Whatever the police decide to do is by definition warranted.
No. They had no probable cause to search Oswald or arrest him for murder.
Your tiresome "your hero" / "your client" / "Saint Patsy" shtick is the useless rhetoric. Along with your belligerent attitude that doesn't actually demonstrate anything but what kind of person you are.
I'll try one last time. If you are suggesting that Brewer and Postal had no cause to take notice of Oswald and lied about that in their testimony and affidavits, then why did Postal confirm that she called the DPD to report him as acting suspiciously? Give us a narrative that explains their actions if they had no cause to take notice of him as you suggest. Got it?
I am interested but not obsessed.
Thanks.
I have explained that on balance I think LHO was a lone gunman and see no coherent evidence of a conspiracy, so not a very startling deduction. I could be wrong though.
I am.
See above.
Before my time.
If you say there is evidence for something then it is reasonable to ask for that evidence and to expect the evidence to be presented. To say, basically, find it yourself, suggests there is no specific evidence.
It took you long enough to get to the LNer patented "point-by-point" rebuttal format.
Of course you are a LNer.
The vast majority of the world knows that a conspiracy took the life of JFK.
You haven't found evidence of a conspiracy because you clearly have NOT bothered to learn the evidence. It is easy to avoid the truth that way.
When the LNers start honoring your last point then I will too. Blame your fellow LNers for why it is NO longer on the board.
But lucky (temporality) for the 'guy' who was staring blankly at shoes in the alcove of the shoe store, conveniently away from the street, eh John.
No, whatever the police do is not by definition warranted. But in this case, the police response was warranted. Nice try though.
You know what kind of person I am ? I'm the kind of person that enjoys exposing fools like you.
You keep insisting that Brewer had no reason to be suspicious of your client and I'll keep clowning you.
It's fun watching Saint Patsy's wannabe self-appointed defense attorney squirm.
Don't like the Saint Patsy moniker ? Too bad. :'(
1 - It is claimed that Brewer notices a man, presumably LHO, at his shoe store window who appears to act "funny" when police cars with sirens go by.
I've some knowledge but not an expert. Never claimed to be. The evidence of a conspiracy is not convincing to me but if there is some then I'd be happy to see it. There are clearly errors in the WC report and attempts to cover up mistakes, for various reasons. Witness reports are at times confused and confusing, but perhaps this is not surprising. But clear evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK? Don't see it.
Nicholas, I'd be curious to know what clear evidence convinces you that Oswald killed JFK. The LNers on this board either avoid that question like the plague or they rattle off a list of things that are not actually evidence (like "Oswald didn't seem interested in finding out what happened") or unsubstantiated or misrepresented conclusions about the evidence (like "Oswald owned the murder weapon").
I don't claim certainty but on balance think that LHO fire the shots which killed JFK. My view is ......The evidence put together by the Warren Commission, though flawed in places, indicates that three shots were fired from the Sixth floor of the TSBD. The ballistics evidence I have seen supports this and does not support shots from other locations. The behaviour of LHO before and after the assassination indicates he,was involved in some way. There is no evidence that clearly links LHO to any conspiracy and I fail to see how a conspiracy could have manipulated the events and forged all the evidence, such as the Zapruder film, the autopsy photographs, the back yard photographs, the links to the rifle and so on as seems to be claimed by many CTists. For LHO to be a knowing part of a conspiracy makes little sense to me due to his profile and personality. For him to have been an unknowing patsy makes more sense but I don't see how this could have been achieved.Good post. Well argued.
I guess overall I have a tendency to see events to be more the product of individuals, mistakes, miscalculations and accidents than controlled by powerful organisations, and in the absence of strong evidence for a successful conspiracy I tend to favour the former rather than the latter.
I am sure you will be able to go through and point out where all this is wrong but on balance I think LHO as an angry, frustrated young man who saw a moment to finally be someone and took it is the most likely explanation for the tragic events in Dealey Plazza.
I would like to hear strong evidence of a conspiracy if there is any, and a clear picture of what that conspiracy actually involved, rather than speculation and general thoughts about mistrusting the powers that be though.
Law Enforcement was DISPATCHED to the Texas Theater, in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, prompted by a call that the ARMED SUSPECT was in the theater.
Postal never used the word ARMED
Brewer never used the word ARMED
HOWEVER THE SUSPECT THAT SHOT TIPPIT WAS REPORTED AS ARMED
Do the math.
The Oswald Defense Team claims that the Law Enforcement Officers dispatched to the theater had no probable cause to detain and question said SUSPECT identified by Brewer
I don't claim certainty but on balance think that LHO fire the shots which killed JFK. My view is ......The evidence put together by the Warren Commission, though flawed in places, indicates that three shots were fired from the Sixth floor of the TSBD.
The ballistics evidence I have seen supports this and does not support shots from other locations.
The behaviour of LHO before and after the assassination indicates he,was involved in some way.
There is no evidence that clearly links LHO to any conspiracy and I fail to see how a conspiracy could have manipulated the events and forged all the evidence, such as the Zapruder film, the autopsy photographs, the back yard photographs, the links to the rifle and so on as seems to be claimed by many CTists.
I am sure you will be able to go through and point out where all this is wrong but on balance I think LHO as an angry, frustrated young man who saw a moment to finally be someone and took it is the most likely explanation for the tragic events in Dealey Plazza.
I would like to hear strong evidence of a conspiracy if there is any, and a clear picture of what that conspiracy actually involved, rather than speculation and general thoughts about mistrusting the powers that be though.
All these words, but NO supporting evidence. No surprise there. Your main problem is -- she NEVER saw the man claimed to be LHO, therefore, she had NO way of knowing how he was acting.
Tell me why she thought a man that she never saw was a suspect in the killing of JFK when DP was miles away. Go ahead.
I think she said that she saw Oswald, it's just that she didn't see actually see him go through the door.
:-)
See my earlier post.
They don't know. No one knows.
I've some knowledge but not an expert. Never claimed to be. The evidence of a conspiracy is not convincing to me but if there is some then I'd be happy to see it. There are clearly errors in the WC report and attempts to cover up mistakes, for various reasons. Witness reports are at times confused and confusing, but perhaps this is not surprising. But clear evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK? Don't see it.
Ok.
As for "acting funny", even that is a stretch.
Mr. BELIN - Did you notice any of his actions when he was standing in your lobby there?
Mr. BREWER - No; he just stood there and stared.
I think she said that she saw Oswald, it's just that she didn't see actually see him go through the door.
Mrs. POSTAL. Now, yes, sir; just about the time we opened, my employer had stayed and took the tickets because we change pictures on Thursday and want to do anything, he----and about this time I heard the sirens----police was racing back and forth.
Mr. BALL. On Jefferson?
Mrs. POSTAL. On Jefferson Boulevard, and then we made the remark, "Some thing is about to bust," or "pop," or something to that effect, so, it was just about----some sirens were going west, and my employer got in his car. He was parked in front, to go up to see where they were going. He, perhaps I said, he passed Oswald. At that time I didn't know it was Oswald. Had to bypass him, because as he went through this way, Oswald went through this way and ducked into the theatre there.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. Had you ever seen this man before then at that particular theatre?
Mrs. POSTAL. Not that I know of, huh-uh.
Mr. BALL. A police car had gone by just before this?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes, sir; going west.
Mr. BALL. Its siren on?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; full blast.
Mr. BALL. And after you saw the police car go west with its siren on, why at the time the police car went west with its siren on, did you see the man that ducked? This man that you were----
Mrs. POSTAL. This man, yes; he ducked into the box office and----I don't know if you are familiar with the theatre.
Mr. BALL. Yes; I have seen the theatre.
Mrs. POSTAL. You have? Well, he was coming from east going west. In other words, he ducked right in.
Mr. BALL. Ducked in, what do you mean? He had come around the corner----
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he ducked in.
Mr. BALL. Now, as the car went by, you say the man ducked in, had you seen him before the car went by, the police went by?
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I was looking up, as I say, when the cars passed, as you know, they make a tremendous noise, and he ducked in as my boss went that way to get in his car.
Mr. BALL. Who is your boss?
Mrs. POSTAL. Mr. John A. Callahan.
Mr. BALL. Where did you say he was?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; I say, they bypassed each other, actually, the man ducked in this way and my employer went that-a-way, to get in his car.
Mr. BALL. When you say "ducked in," you mean he entered the door from the street?
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; just ducked into the other----into the outer part of it.
Mr. BALL. I see, out in the open space?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes, sir; just right around the corner.
Mr. BALL. Just right around the corner?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And your boss passed him, did he?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; they went----one came one way, and one went the other way just at the same time.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him do after became around the corner?
Mrs. POSTAL. Well, I didn't actually----because I stepped out of the box office and went to the front and was facing west. I was right at the box office facing west, because I thought .the police were stopping up quite a ways. Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was standing there and he asked me if the fellow that ducked in bought a ticket, and I said, "No; by golly, he didn't," and turned around expecting to see him.
Mr. BALL. And he had ducked in?
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338516/m1/1/)
That's where one would have to go to look at the shoes. Your point? "Blankly". LOL.
I guess only cop killers stare. LOL.
You use the same site as your twin. Interesting. Explain why she wasn't sure if she sold him a ticket then if she saw him duck into the theater.She didn't say she saw him enter the theater. She said she saw him come around the corner into the space where the ticket booth was, but didn't see him go through the door.
Yes, she said that in her testimony, but that is in conflict with her other statements and with Brewer's account.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him do after became around the corner?
Mrs. POSTAL. Well, I didn't actually----because I stepped out of the box office and went to the front and was facing west. I was right at the box office facing west, because I thought .the police were stopping up quite a ways. Well, just as I turned around then Johnny Brewer was standing there and he asked me if the fellow that ducked in bought a ticket, and I said, "No; by golly, he didn't," and turned around expecting to see him.
. . .
Mr. BELIN - Then did you know when you saw him walk in and when you walked up to Julia Postal that he had not bought a ticket?
Mr. BREWER - I knew that he hadn't.
Mr. BELIN - Why did you ask Julia Postal whether he had or hadn't?
Mr. BREWER - I don't know.
Mr. BELIN - You just asked her?
Mr. BREWER - Just asked her whether he had bought or she had seen him go in.
Mr. BELIN - She---did she say whether she had seen him, or don't you remember?
Mr. BREWER - She said she couldn't remember a man of that description going in.
Good post. Well argued.
Arguable, but ok so far.
Depending on what wound locations you want to go with and what assumptions you make about them, but ok so far.
Here's where you go off the rails. What behavior, and how does it unambiguously indicate that he was involved ?
So what you're doing here is that you're just pre-assuming that LHO was involved as a given, and just turning your attention solely to whether anyone else was involved rather than actually examining the evidence for Oswald being involved.
Lots of people speculate on lots of possible narratives, but I'm only interested in what actually can be demonstrated with evidence.
Sure. Just as I would like to hear strong evidence that LHO did it, if there is any, rather than speculation and assumptions based on a little bit of questionable evidence. I don't believe in a pre-assassination conspiracy either -- for the same reasons. That doesn't tell you anything about whether Oswald did it or not.
If you don't know the evidence, and you seem not to, of course you don't see any evidence of a conspiracy. The best evidence of a conspiracy is found in the twenty-six volumes and CD's.
Okay, so you don't want to waste your time responding to a self confessed non expert. That's fine, I'll just return to my previous position of not responding to any of your posts, as there is no oint and I have other things to do and others to talk to. I have no intention of reading the 26 volumes at present - maybe one day when I've retired. We both know where we stand now so lets leave it and move on.
Okay, so you don't want to waste your time responding to a self confessed non expert. That's fine, I'll just return to my previous position of not responding to any of your posts, as there is no oint and I have other things to do and others to talk to. I have no intention of reading the 26 volumes at present - maybe one day when I've retired. We both know where we stand now so lets leave it and move on.There are two basic types of conspiracy advocates: the reasonable and thoughtful and the unreasonable and thoughtless. It's best to ignore and avoid the latter because they can see evidence for a conspiracy in the shape of the mayonnaise in their ham sandwiches.
The important thing is Brewer saw Saint Patsy and thought he was acting suspicously.
His wannabe attorney's insinuations and lamentations that Brewer didn't have a valid reason for being suspicous of Saint Patsy is an absolute absurdity.
Which is why the wannabe's pathetic argument is now morphing into 'they didn't have probable cause to search him'.
The 'didn't have reason to be suspicious of Saint Patsy' objection would be laughed out of court, much less a JFK assassination forum.
What, no front windows? My point is the 'guy' was lucky he was out of sight, eh?
Brewer says the 'guy' was standing by the tennis shoes. So he was buying Junie tennis shoes, huh?.
Sample of Oswald with messed up hair, and what could reasonably be described as staring.
She didn't say she saw him enter the theater. She said she saw him come around the corner into the space where the ticket booth was, but didn't see him go through the door.
Watching though, I feel it is easy to become too heavily involved in analysing the fine detail and to not take a step back and see the big picture.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to a non expert :-)
I think I start with LHO being a suspect, which he surely is, and try to see if the evidence fits. I think it does mostly but accept it is not certain or unambiguous. I struggle to see how it could all be wrong, fake or misunderstood.
I tend to take all human testimony with a pinch of salt, considering it to be unreliable in many cases
unless supported by other evidence, or supported by other independent human testimony.
There are two basic types of conspiracy advocates: the reasonable and thoughtful and the unreasonable and thoughtless. It's best to ignore and avoid the latter because they can see evidence for a conspiracy in the shape of the mayonnaise in their ham sandwiches.
And it is funny reading these conspiracy "experts" - self-appointed of course - criticize non-experts - again, by their standard - and yet dismiss the real experts - photographic, forensic, ballistics - who say the evidence points to Oswald as the assassin.
Why is that important?
Cool rebuttal bro. Wannabe intellectual declares an opposing view "absurd" and thinks his job is done. :D
The only thing that is absurd is what you think passes for a rational argument.
You are so utterly clueless. That's not a "morph" or even a new argument. It's just a fact.
You're very adept at useless sarcasm. Actually providing a reason for Brewer to be suspicious of a guy standing there staring at shoes...not so much. Brewer himself didn't even provide a reason, yet you're so full of yourself you think it just goes without saying, and <insert juvenile cowardly sarcastic insult here for good measure>. That's all you're capable of.
You really don't understand why it's important that Brewer found Saint Patsy suspicious ?This is another example of the effort to make evidence against Oswald disappear. That is: demand that the information be explained to an absurd degree - What did Brewer mean by "suspicious"? How did Oswald look "scared"? - and then when the replies don't satisfy the questioner (none will) simply say the information is worthless.
Let me expain it to you.
The FACT that Brewer thought your client was acting suspiciously resulted in Saint Patsy being apprehended.
It doesn't matter that a wannabe blowhard attorney doesn't think his client was acting suspiciously.
It's incredible that you think your opinion of whether Saint Patsy was acting suspiciously outweighs Brewer's.
You can As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and moan forever that 'looking funny' or 'staring at shoes' was insufficient reason for Brewer to have any suspicions about your hero, but you weren't there and Brewer was.
Brewer's opinion and actions matter, all your bloviating, whining and grandstanding doesn't.
Brewer hero. Iacoletti zero.
No, this is a sample of what Oswald looked like after the police beat the sh!t out of him.
This is another example of the effort to make evidence against Oswald disappear. That is: demand that the information be explained to an absurd degree - What did Brewer mean by "suspicious"? How did Oswald look "scared"? - and then when the replies don't satisfy the questioner (none will) simply say the information is worthless.
We've seen this time after time. The rifle purchase, the backyard photos, the Hiddell ID....whatever. The evidence is made to vanish. He's not saying it was manufactured or faked; no, he's saying it never existed in the first place.
Then they turn around and say they really want to discuss the evidence in this event. They truly do. Sure, to perform their rhetorical magic tricks to make it disappear.
There are two types of "Oswald did it" advocates. those who discuss the actual evidence, acknowledge the weaknesses in their arguments, and civilly discuss differences of opinion, and those who mock and insult the other side, avoid discussing the evidence at all costs, and spend all their time mocking and insulting.
What's funny is people who think that a false appeal to authority is a valid argument. If "expert" can't scientifically support his or her conclusion with the evidence he or she is examining, or if their experiments are not falsifiable or repeatable then their credentials do not make a whit of difference.
And a sample of what Oswald looks like with messed up hair and a stare
Did police beat the crap out of Oswald? Seems to me it was more of a wrestling match to remove the pistol from his possession. Well, at least after a retaliatory punch administered by McDonald after a first strike by your boy. Oswald's 'a policeman hit me' answer to a reporter's question about the mark on his face, doesn't seem to be a complaint about any sh*t-kicking.
(https://s33.postimg.cc/byyeklnz3/messed_hair_stared.png)
Newbies, just imagine Oswald in that window
You really don't understand why it's important that Brewer found Saint Patsy suspicious ?
Let me expain it to you.
The FACT that Brewer thought your client was acting suspiciously resulted in Saint Patsy being apprehended.
It doesn't matter that a wannabe blowhard attorney doesn't think his client was acting suspiciously.
It's incredible that you think your opinion of whether Saint Patsy was acting suspiciously outweighs Brewer's.
You can As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and moan forever that 'looking funny' or 'staring at shoes' was insufficient reason for Brewer to have any suspicions about your hero, but you weren't there and Brewer was.
Brewer's opinion and actions matter, all your bloviating, whining and grandstanding doesn't.
Brewer hero. Iacoletti zero.
This is another example of the effort to make evidence against Oswald disappear. That is: demand that the information be explained to an absurd degree - What did Brewer mean by "suspicious"? How did Oswald look "scared"? - and then when the replies don't satisfy the questioner (none will) simply say the information is worthless.
We've seen this time after time. The rifle purchase, the backyard photos, the Hiddell ID....whatever. The evidence is made to vanish. He's not saying it was manufactured or faked; no, he's saying it never existed in the first place.
And a sample of what Oswald looks like with messed up hair and a stare
Did police beat the crap out of Oswald? Seems to me it was more of a wrestling match to remove the pistol from his possession.
Well, at least after a retaliatory punch administered by McDonald after a first strike by your boy.
What exactly do you think "looking scared" is evidence of?
"those who mock and insult the other side'
Like you with Inattentional Blindness
You fcn hypocrite
Newbies, just imagine Oswald in that window
So now you want them to imagine evidence?
Did someone say that Brewer's personal observations were evidence of murder? It seems only CTers are the ones suggesting that.
About 3 years ago, a guy came into a coffee shop and sat about 15 feet away from me. He had a backpack. He had an unfriendly, even angry, look on his face. Sure enough, a few minutes later he looked around while loudly blurting out something in a language I didn't recognize.
That the observer thought he looked scared.
The fine detail is where the big picture falls apart.
She didn't say she saw him enter the theater. She said she saw him come around the corner into the space where the ticket booth was, but didn't see him go through the door.
Visual aid:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7431907,-96.826047,3a,60y,6.69h,85.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9PyQ5zmWgGMSxT5qxBRATQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Okay, so you don't want to waste your time responding to a self confessed non expert. That's fine, I'll just return to my previous position of not responding to any of your posts, as there is no oint and I have other things to do and others to talk to. I have no intention of reading the 26 volumes at present - maybe one day when I've retired. We both know where we stand now so lets leave it and move on.
There are two basic types of conspiracy advocates: the reasonable and thoughtful and the unreasonable and thoughtless. It's best to ignore and avoid the latter because they can see evidence for a conspiracy in the shape of the mayonnaise in their ham sandwiches.
If you can't see it too then, well, you're not an expert like they are.
And it is funny reading these conspiracy "experts" - self-appointed of course - criticize non-experts - again, by their standard - and yet dismiss the real experts - photographic, forensic, ballistics - who say the evidence points to Oswald as the assassin.
This is another example of the effort to make evidence against Oswald disappear. That is: demand that the information be explained to an absurd degree - What did Brewer mean by "suspicious"? How did Oswald look "scared"? - and then when the replies don't satisfy the questioner (none will) simply say the information is worthless.
We've seen this time after time. The rifle purchase, the backyard photos, the Hiddell ID....whatever. The evidence is made to vanish. He's not saying it was manufactured or faked; no, he's saying it never existed in the first place.
Then they turn around and say they really want to discuss the evidence in this event. They truly do. Sure, to perform their rhetorical magic tricks to make it disappear.
Mitch Todd: She didn't say she saw him enter the theater. She said she saw him come around the corner into the space where the ticket booth was, but didn't see him go through the door.She did say it in her affidavit.
She was inconsistent as she didn't say that in her affidavit. If you want to use Postal then you have to tie her suspicions to the killing of JFK as she had no idea that JDT had been killed.
Why would she think a killer of JFK in DP would be four miles away in Oak Cliff? Furthermore, why would the said killer be going into a movie theater instead of heading out of town?Again, she didn't say that she thought he was a suspect. She probably wouldn't have given him a second thought had Brewer not asked her about the guy.
Then why did she say "what man?" when Brewer asked her about him?Because she initially didn't know who he was talking about. Oswald may not have been the only man in her immediate vicinity. In fact, we know he wasn't; she said that Oswald passed her manager, Mr Callahan as he left the building and got into his car. And there may have been others.
Why is a shoe salesman's opinion of suspicious behavior that he can't even describe any better than anyone else's, including a cowardly anonymous Internet troll's?
Why is a shoe salesman's opinion of suspicious behavior that he blah blah blah..
She did say it in her affidavit.
"Johnny asked me if I sold that man a ticket. I asked him what man. He said that man that just ducked in here.I told him no, I didn't, but I had noticed him as he ducked in here." It's worded kind of confusingly, but she clearly states that she "noticed him." "Here" simply means the recessed area around the box office. It's a stated more clearly in her testimony:
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I was looking up, as I say, when the cars passed, as you know, they make a tremendous noise, and he ducked in as my boss went that way to get in his car.
Mr. BALL. Who is your boss?
Mrs. POSTAL. Mr. John A. Callahan.
Mr. BALL. Where did you say he was?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; I say, they bypassed each other, actually, the man ducked in this way and my employer went that-a-way, to get in his car.
Mr. BALL. When you say "ducked in," you mean he entered the door from the street?
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; just ducked into the other----into the outer part of it.
Mr. BALL. I see, out in the open space?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes, sir; just right around the corner.
Mr. BALL. Just right around the corner?
Mrs. POSTAL. Yes.
Again, she didn't say that she thought he was a suspect. She probably wouldn't have given him a second thought had Brewer not asked her about the guy.
Pointing out that a gorilla playing basketball is not relevant to whether a bag was or was not in a crime scene is not mocking and insulting. Sorry, you're going to have to find some different rhetoric.
Why didn't Brewer see the man when he went in to look for him?
You've just misrepresented the whole point of the invisible gorilla tests.
How could she see the man duck into the TT, but not know if he purchased a ticket when she sold the tickets? It is impossible.She didn't say she saw the man duck into the Theater. She said she saw him duck into the recessed area in front of the box office and doors. Then she turned to see something going on to the West, which is when the guy went through the door that was now behind her. Until Brewer brought her attention to the guy, he was just a pedestrian to her.
Why didn't Brewer see the man when he went in to look for him?Brewer said that he and Burroughs first went to check the exits to see if anyone had left. Then they went to the balcony and looked around. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure it's easy to ID someone by the back of their head in a dark room.
You're the biggest troll on this forum.
... long line of patently ridiculous Iacoletti troll nonsense.
LMAO @ the sanctimonious hypocrite windbag troll whining about belligerence.
You mean at first, or eventually..? A movie was playing, and it takes time for the eyes to adjust to a darkened theater, especially on a bright sunny day.
She didn't say she saw the man duck into the Theater. She said she saw him duck into the recessed area in front of the box office and doors. Then she turned to see something going on to the West, which is when the guy went through the door that was now behind her. Until Brewer brought her attention to the guy, he was just a pedestrian to her.
For reference, here's a view of the Texas Theater:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7431907,-96.826047,3a,39.3y,11.83h,86.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9PyQ5zmWgGMSxT5qxBRATQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Brewer said that he and Burroughs first went to check the exits to see if anyone had left. Then they went to the balcony and looked around. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure it's easy to ID someone by the back of their head in a dark room.
You can't be serious.
Why is a shoe salesman's opinion of suspicious behavior better than anyone else's ?
Because the shoe salesman in question was there !
His opinion of whether Saint Patsy was acting suspicious is the ONLY one that matters.
It's hilarious watching an obtuse blowhard wannabe Gerry Spence try to convince the forum jury that Brewer had no reason to suspect Oswald.
Are you trying to convince people Brewer was unjustified or wrong to think your client was acting suspiciously ? Is this an attempt to imply that Brewer shouldn't have taken the actions he did ?
Again, Brewer was there. You weren't.
It doesn't matter that YOU aren't satisfied with his explanation of why he found Saint Patsy suspicious (no explanation would satisfy you anyway). All that matters is he DID find your hero suspicious and took the prudent and swift measures which resulted in your client's apprehension.
By the way Goofy, using a forum provided avatar doesn't make one 'cowardly'.
You've just misrepresented the whole point of the invisible gorilla tests. People were distracted by concentrating on something else. Maybe they should have a car driving through the room and watch half the people get run over. Would that sink in, concept-wise, professor... would it take that for you to get the concept?
She didn't say she saw the man duck into the Theater. She said she saw him duck into the recessed area in front of the box office and doors. Then she turned to see something going on to the West, which is when the guy went through the door that was now behind her. Until Brewer brought her attention to the guy, he was just a pedestrian to her.
(https://i.giphy.com/10xZU9b7JBx14s.gif)
It's not that I don't "get" the concept -- it's that the concept doesn't apply. What were the law enforcement officers who were examining the crime scene "distracted" by? Were the deputies playing basketball in the SN while a 38 x 8 inch bag waltzed through in a gorilla costume?
And I guess you forgot all about how I supposedly insulted you by pointing this out.
'And I guess you forgot all about how I supposedly insulted you by pointing this out.'
>>> Keep guessing. You're once again hurling insults by childishly mocking the 'invisible gorilla' findings regarding IB science
The investigation re some deputies noticed a large bag/some didn't fits the model of the invisible gorilla experiments (which spawned IB science). Pick up a book and find the role state-of-mind can play in distracting some oobservers.
No, it's your behavior that makes you cowardly. You sit there behind your anonymous computer screen and sling abusive juvenile insults from the safety of your mom's basement and derail any productive conversation about the case because that's what trolls do.
You're way too easy, Jimbo. :D ;D
Please point out where I insulted you.
>>> Don't worry, I'm used to it
What "state of mind" do you propose would cause crime scene investigators not to notice a large object out in the open in the middle of a crime scene?
>>> This has been covered, both in other threads regarding the gun bag, and IB science.
The Long Brown Bag
Notice that the troll doesn't dispute any of these things...
Now can we get back on with the productive conversation in which you convince the forum that Brewer didn't have a valid reason to suspect Saint Patsy of anything ?
Here, let me help you....
Looked 'funny', LOL
Looked 'scared', LOL
More of this incisive analysis and productive conversation, please.
Is there supposed to be a valid reason to suspect somebody of murder somewhere in that wall of nonsense?
You see, the cops were searching for a suspect in the murder of another officer.
You do understand that, right ?
Now counselor, if someone looked scared while the cops were passing by, what should Brewer's reaction be ?
Ok, so far. But we're talking about Brewer, not "the cops".
I don't know. Brewer never even explained what "looking scared" meant, given that he was just standing there staring.
But I don't care. Brewer's not any more required to be rational than you are. I'm more interested in why the cops considered the man that Postal supposedly described as a murder suspect. That's their job, not Brewer's.
But if you have a rational reason for why a person staring in a window should be considered a murder suspect, then present it, rather than trying to turn it around like you always do.
Not too bright, are you counselor ?
Let's go through it again.
Cops are searching for murder suspect.
Brewer sees man that looks scared and takes action which results in cops being notified that a suspect is probably in the TT.
What part of that sequence is so difficult for you to grasp or accept ?
Sheesh.
You can't be this dense.
The cops are looking for a murder suspect.
Brewer sees a man that looks scared and rightly concludes the man might be a suspect in the murder.
What's so hard to understand ?
Please point out where I insulted you.
>>> Don't worry, I'm used to it
What "state of mind" do you propose would cause crime scene investigators not to notice a large object out in the open in the middle of a crime scene?
>>> This has been covered, both in other threads regarding the gun bag, and IB science.
You're ignoring an important detail. The ones who noticed the bag were the ones who were in the SN later, and the ones who didn't see a bag there were the ones who were in the SN when it was first discovered.
The Long Brown Bag
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
[EXCERPT]
It might seem suspicious that six police officers did not see the bag, until we look at the details of their testimony. None of the six could reasonably have been expected to see it. (1)
1. Conspiracy theorists claim that these six officers show the bag was not in the depository and that the bag was forged. A little research into why these officers never saw the bag leads to a different conclusion. One such officer is Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, and while he is correctly credited with finding the sniper's nest, he is wrongly assumed to have searched for anything else in the depository. When he found the sniper's nest, he simply called to Lieutenant Day and made sure no one touched anything until Day arrived. When Day did arrive, Mooney stayed in the Depository for only 15-20 minutes longer, but the bag was not discovered until sometime later. He himself states that he did not look for it (3H287-9). Mooney, like most of the officers, was only concerned with finding the weapon and not other evidence at the time.
Officer J. B. Hicks was also questioned. He testified that he had not seen the sack, but he also testified he had not arrived at the depository until 3 pm while the long bag had been photographed leaving at 2:19 (7H287-9).
Captain J. W. Fritz also stated that he did not see the bag but that the bag was found later when he was not there,
Sergeant Gerald Hill states he "left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun (7H65)."
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig left immediately after the rifle was found and photographed (6H268-70).
Detective Elmer L. Boyd did not see the bag because he left once he heard about the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit (7H120-2). The rifle bag was not found until after the shooting of Tippit which Boyd and several officers left to help investigate.
You don't understand what "why" means, and I'm the one who's dense?
Yes....what does that have to do with Brewer?
Yes. WHY? What did he see that indicated murderer? And you don't know that it was "rightly", that's just more posturing.
What's hard to understand is why you think restating a claim somehow substantiates that claim. Again, we all know what Brewer (said he) concluded. The question is why?
What part of that is supposed to explain WHY this person should be considered a murder suspect?
The real question is why you're incapable of understanding or accepting that Brewer thought Saint Patsy looked scared and became suspicious of your hero.
It's not a 'claim' that Brewer thought your hero looked scared, it's a fact that's substantiated by his actions.
It's also a fact that Brewer didn't think a manhunt was on for a jaywalker.
Why do you think Brewer got involved ?
Did he have a vendetta against your hero ?
Had nothing better to do ?
After pages and pages of this, you actually ask 'what does this have to do with Brewer ?'
Unreal.
Why not is a better question.
Do you always answer questions with other questions? Or just when you can't answer them?
Well, Steve, go to an amusement park and watch the people get off the roller coaster. Do some of them look "scared"? Do you suspect them of murder?
Was there an amusement park outside the shoe store? Where's your source for that?
So Mytton is back and we have learned that a clip from a TV movie demonstrates what Brewer saw and that being a shoe store "manager" somehow makes him not a shoe salesman.
So Mytton is back
and we have learned that a clip from a TV movie demonstrates what Brewer saw
and that being a shoe store "manager" somehow makes him not a shoe salesman.
Yes, here I am and I have no to need to worry because I know where to find you, 8 hours a day Mon to Friday.
Oliver Stone made a lot of money by demonstrating what people saw.
Where the heck did I say that, too much Kool Aid perhaps?
All I did was post Brewer's testimony citing his Job Position.
"No to need to worry"? Trust me, I wasn't the least bit worried.
No, Oliver Stone made money by making movies. "John Mytton" uses movies to make bad arguments.
Sure, perhaps you'd like to explain the relevance? Or was that just a random factoid you decided to throw in there for no apparent reason?
Brewer was the manager of a shoe store. Give the man his proper title.
Was there an amusement park outside the shoe store? Where's your source for that?
So that's why Saint Patsy looked scared....he just got off a roller coaster in the amusement park outside the shoe store.
"No to need to worry"? Trust me, I wasn't the least bit worried.
No, Oliver Stone made money by making movies. "John Mytton" uses movies to make bad arguments.
Sure, perhaps you'd like to explain the relevance? Or was that just a random factoid you decided to throw in there for no apparent reason?
"No to need to worry"? Trust me, I wasn't the least bit worried.
No, Oliver Stone made money by making movies.
"John Mytton" uses movies to make bad arguments.
So Mytton is back....
Sure, perhaps you'd like to explain the relevance?
Or was that just a random factoid you decided to throw in there for no apparent reason?
So that's why Saint Patsy looked scared....he just got off a roller coaster in the amusement park outside the shoe store.
Add that to the fake cop car with the screeching tires (maybe the drive had big shoes and a large red nose) that spun 180 degrees and Oswald with a gut full of hot dogs, turkey legs and ice cream cones. It's no wonder he looked a little off color.
I thought we were talking about "looking scared" making somebody a murder suspect.
I thought we were talking about "looking scared" making somebody a murder suspect.
Actually, we were talking about Saint Patsy looking scared and Brewer suspecting your hero might be the person the cops were searching for on 11/22/63.
We weren't talking about just anyone looking scared at any given moment in time being a suspect for any murder that ever occurred.
It's amazing that distinction goes right over your head.
Conflating troll.
The following clip gives a good representation of Brewer's testimony which shows what is clearly suspicious behaviour and after seeing Oswald disappear into the Texas Theater Brewer and then adding that to Postal's observation it would be a criminal act not to ring the police!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/minfxhrff/Oswald_Brewer.gif)
JohnM
Perfect. Nice recreation. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Perfect. Nice recreation. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Which film was that from? The guy looks exactly like Oswald.
Only if it is an accurate recreation though.
For the thousandth time, why does it matter whether Oswald looked "scared" or not if nothing nefarious is being suggested regarding Brewer's conduct? Even if Brewer had acted unreasonably, but from a subjective belief that Oswald was suspicious, that doesn't change the narrative of events one iota. Again, this is a desperate attempt to imply that Brewer was acting for some nefarious purpose but without acknowledging that is the intent. It then goes down the rabbit hole of why someone looking scared would be considered a murder suspect (how about because the police received a report of a suspicious person in the area where a murder had just been committed?). Suggesting that scenario is comparable to someone looking scared getting off a rollercoaster is one of the most absurd comparisons in the history of this forum. The dishonest contrarian should apologize for making all of us dumber for having read that nonsense.Let's try this (devil's advocacy): If Brewer's interpretation of Oswald's behavior was just wrong - he simply innocently misread Oswald's actions (appearing frightened et cetera) - then that removes part of the evidence of Oswald's shooting of Tippit and from that his involvement in the assassination.
Anyway, to get back to the original question of this thread; why did Saint Patsy go to the movies ?
I submit that the evidence clearly shows that Saint Oz was in flight. He didn't plan to go to the movies. He just happened to wind up in the theater after murdering Ofiicer Tippit.
There is an extremely remote possibility that the theater was a pre-arranged place to meet at after the assassination, but there's not a shred of evidence to support that idea, and plenty of reasons to doubt it.
I find it interesting that none of the conspiracy clowns have stated why they think Saint Patsy went to the movies.
Actually, we were talking about Saint Patsy looking scared and Brewer suspecting your hero might be the person the cops were searching for on 11/22/63.
For the thousandth time, why does it matter whether Oswald looked "scared" or not if nothing nefarious is being suggested regarding Brewer's conduct? Even if Brewer had acted unreasonably, but from a subjective belief that Oswald was suspicious, that doesn't change the narrative of events one iota. Again, this is a desperate attempt to imply that Brewer was acting for some nefarious purpose but without acknowledging that is the intent. It then goes down the rabbit hole of why someone looking scared would be considered a murder suspect (how about because the police received a report of a suspicious person in the area where a murder had just been committed?). Suggesting that scenario is comparable to someone looking scared getting off a rollercoaster is one of the most absurd comparisons in the history of this forum. The dishonest contrarian should apologize for making all of us dumber for having read that nonsense.
The following clip gives a good representation of Brewer's testimony which shows what is clearly suspicious behaviour
Did you ever get around to figuring out how you know that Brewer knew that the cops were searching for somebody?
Or did he just figure that out from a "scared look"?
Of course Brewer knew the cops were looking for Tippit's murderer.
Well, I guess that settles it. Howard said "of course", therefore it must be true. :D
I'm not the one embarrassing myself.
OK Trolletti, have it your way. Brewer had no idea the cops were searching for a suspect in Tippit's murder.
Happy now ?
What a troll.
Did you ever get around to figuring out how you know that Brewer knew that the cops were searching for somebody?
Or did he just figure that out from a "scared look"?
I'd be happy if you would even once, try to support one of your claims with evidence rather than insults and sarcasm.
According to Brewer, he had been listening to the reports of the assassination (and Tippit shooting) on the radio, and coupled with his remarks about the relative nearby distance to Dealey Plaza from the store and the closeby cop-killing location, he said he thought that maybe the 'guy' might be the one they were looking for.
It's nice of Gee to admit that LHO was a patsy as he claimed. I wonder if that will cost him his LNer membership?
I'd be happy if you would even once, try to support one of your claims with evidence
Do you ever post evidence?
JohnM
The irony is that you also rarely post evidence and instead rely on your memory where everything is dishonestly stripped back to its barest essentials and numbers like 3 magically become 2. LOL
JohnM
It's nice of Gee to admit that LHO was a patsy as he claimed. I wonder if that will cost him his LNer membership?
The LNers cannot explain the official narrative. If Brewer was involved as claimed and he knew about JDT's murder, why didn't Postal know about it until the police arrived?
Thanks Bill, you're already miles ahead of TrollGee. He just fell off of a pier.
Can you point me to where Brewer said he thought that maybe the 'guy' might be the one they were looking for? I don't see anything like that in his affidavit or testimony.
Also, what radio station reported on the Tippit shooting within 15 minutes of it supposedly happening?
Thanks Bill, you're already miles ahead of TrollGee. He just fell off of a pier.
Can you point me to where Brewer said he thought that maybe the 'guy' might be the one they were looking for? I don't see anything like that in his affidavit or testimony.
Also, what radio station reported on the Tippit shooting within 15 minutes of it supposedly happening?
Which radio station? Likely one of the stations reporting the assassination. You'll have to find out if Brewer was switching stations. Anyway, how does that prove Oswald innocent?The President is shot - maybe, Oswald didn't know for sure since he was told "maybe they missed" - right outside the building where he worked.
You'll have to point out in his affidavit and WC testimony where the brunt of what Brewer swore to changed anything about his observance of a fellow that appeared nervous* to him, apparently enough to follow him down the street.
*a word he used in his affidavit
Rob, can you point out when and where Brewer said he told Postal about Tippit's murder?
JohnM
Just look at the massive angry crowd that gathered within minutes at the Texas Theater, the hatred, fear and desperation were at fever pitch and in this terror filled environment Brewer and Postal who were accustomed to dealing with the public saw Oswald avoiding the Police so both just acted as they should and put their community first and put their own safety second.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/49/a8/2e/49a82eac96def1d59a637b14f49172fb.jpg)
JohnM
This doesn't wash. She notices him enough to see a "panicked look on his face" and to think he's "running from the police" (even though he wasn't running), and then decides to just turn around and look the other way? Then Brewer immediately comes up to her and asks about the man and she doesn't know what man or whether or not he bought a ticket? I think she just didn't want to admit that she supposedly let a guy sneak by her without noticing him at all.The "panicked look on his face" is what she noticed when she initially saw him. "Running from police" came after Brewer followed the guy into the theater and had her call police. The difference is the extra information provided by Brewer (in both word and deed) and in the extra time that allowed her to put two and two together. Before Brewer showed up, he was just some other guy on the street, albeit some dude with that fashionable panicked look to him. The assassination happened a three miles away, and she didn't know yet about the Tippit killing. Why would she automatically be expected to immediately assume that he was important in any way?
If your explanation is accurate, and that is doubtful, then she should have known that she did NOT sell a ticket to him, but she wasn't sure. How come?Maybe she thought he might have been a customer who'd bought a ticket earlier but either left the theatre and came back, but just didn't pay enough attention to patrons to know for sure.
Why didn't she find him suspicious like Brewer allegedly did? Why was staring more suspicious behavior than ducking?Postal and Brewer were two different people. There's no good reason to assume that they would automatically read the same thing into Oswald's behavior.
If all those excuses were true, why did they bother to look for him then?
This doesn't wash. She notices him enough to see a "panicked look on his face" and to think he's "running from the police" (even though he wasn't running), and then decides to just turn around and look the other way? Then Brewer immediately comes up to her and asks about the man and she doesn't know what man or whether or not he bought a ticket? I think she just didn't want to admit that she supposedly let a guy sneak by her without noticing him at all.
Searching around on the internet last night I saw a reference to KLIF having broadcast the news of a Dallas police officer having been shot at 1.33pm. I tried to find more on this and found that you can actually listen to the radio broadcasts from KLIF which are recorded and preserved so listened to them from just before the news of the shots in Dealey Plaza came through. Quite interesting and moving really. I haven't worked out from them when the news of the Tippit shooting was broadcast yet - but I also found n article about Tippit's family and how they heard the news and it said that heard reports of the shooting of a Dallas Policeman only minutes after it had happened. Sadly apparently the name of the officer was later broadcast before the family had been informed.
Maybe she thought he might have been a customer who'd bought a ticket earlier but either left the theatre and came back, but just didn't pay enough attention to patrons to know for sure.
Postal and Brewer were two different people. There's no good reason to assume that they would automatically read the same thing into Oswald's behavior.
A fine bit of sleuthing, I must say.
Mr. BELIN - Who was Burroughs?
Mr. BREWER - He was behind the counter. He operated the concession and takes tickets. He was behind the concession stand and I asked him if he had seen a man in a brown shirt of that description, matching that description, and he said he had been working behind the counter and hadn't seen anybody.
And I asked him if he would come with me and show me where the exits were and we would check the exits. And he asked me why.
I told him that I thought the guy looked suspicious.
Um, he looked like suspicious -- LOL
lol
Let me guess, you are a 9-11 truther too, right?
::)
9/11 was a conspiracy.Of course it was [though I don't quite know what a 'truther' is] :-\
9/11 was a conspiracy.
If Postal is in the box office right up until the suspect ducks in (but does not enter the theater) how did she miss the Tippit shooting on the radio that Brewer allegedly heard? Everyone believes the action is WEST of the theater.
how did she miss the Tippit shooting on the radio that Brewer allegedly heard?
Worth investigating?
She said she was listening to KLIF. They reported a police officer had been shot, but said it was unconnected to the Presidents assassination and initially didn't give the officers name.
Thumb1:
Mr. BALL. You didn't hear that?
Mrs. POSTAL. I was listening to KLIF, and I was down in the little box office, and they kept saying that Parkland hadn't issued an official report, that he had been removed from the operating table, and everyone wanted to surmise, but still hope, and it was after this that they came out and said that he was officially dead.
JohnM
Cool. Lucky pick by Brewer and his buddies.
Mr. BREWER - We were listening to a transistor radio there in the store, just listening to a regular radio program, and they broke in with the bulletin that the President had been shot. And from then, that is all there was. We listened to all of the events.
Worth looking into who his buddies were?
Cool. Lucky pick by Brewer and his buddies.
Mr. BREWER - We were listening to a transistor radio there in the store, just listening to a regular radio program, and they broke in with the bulletin that the President had been shot. And from then, that is all there was. We listened to all of the events.
Worth looking into who his buddies were?
The manager leaves his shop unattended and gets promoted?
Mr. BELIN - What is the address of that shop in Dallas?
Mr. BREWER - 213 West Jefferson.
Mr. BELIN - They made you the manager of that shop?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - How long have you been manager?
Mr. BREWER - Since August of 1962.
Mr. BELIN - From August 1962 on?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Until the present time?
Mr. BREWER - Until the day I was made manager of the downtown store.
Mr. BELIN - Today is the 2d of April, or the 3d?
Mr. BREWER - Second.
Mr. BELIN - You were made manager of the Hardy's Downtown Shoe Store?
Mr. BREWER - Yes, sir.
It wasn't April Fool's. I thought they were firing me, but it turned out they weren't.
Mr. BELIN - Did he call you in yesterday to tell you?
Mr. BREWER - Day before yesterday and told me to get ready for an audit, that I would be going to town, if I wanted it, and I said yes.
Mr. BELIN - Would this be considered a promotion?
Mr. BREWER - A better store, more volume, and make more money. It would be considered a promotion.
The manager leaves his shop unattended and gets promoted?
Suspicious huh.
If you both think it's a great idea today how do you explain it wasn't done in '64 when everyone was still alive?
If you both think it's a great idea today how do you explain it wasn't done in '64 when everyone was still alive?
The manager leaves his shop unattended and gets promoted?
Was it a reward for saying the correct (in the eyes of the WC) things? I wonder what he was doing that he was expecting to be fired?
If you both think it's a great idea today how do you explain it wasn't done in '64 when everyone was still alive?
He received an award a few years back I believe. Probably an award for saying what the WC wanted him to say though ....
Why are you deflecting my question?
So why the interest (as opposed to BELIN's lack of interest)?
So why is it a great idea today?Nicholas can answer for himself but IMO the investigation has become so huge that there's a push to keep pumping it up more and more. It's a jigsaw that we thought was a 1000 pieces but now realise it's actually 5000+ pieces and we've not put all of them in place. The significant pieces have been found and added to the jigsaw. We can now see what is depicted and what's important. The pieces yet to be placed are like bits of blue sky in the top RH and LH corners which don't actually add to our overall understanding and appreciation of what's depicted but are pleasing to place as an exercise in squeezing every last piece into the picture.
Quite the contrary.
Uncorroborated testimony are notoriously weak evidence. That's why any investigator looks for corroboration... or contradictions. BELIN was following the preferred MO in the Tippit case: Don't rock the boat! All the WC wanted to take home from the Tippit case was "Oswald the desperate cop killer".
It's evident that if Oswald entered the theater prior Tippit being shot he didn't do it. Witnesses in the shoe store, staff or whoever it was, might have compromised Brewer's story and ultimately busted the WC timeline. Big trouble ahead.
So why is it a great idea today?
... I never described it as a great idea, that was you ...
Quite the contrary.
Uncorroborated testimony are notoriously weak evidence. That's why any investigator looks for corroboration... or contradictions. BELIN was following the preferred MO in the Tippit case: Don't rock the boat! All the WC wanted to take home from the Tippit case was "Oswald the desperate cop killer".
It's evident that if Oswald entered the theater prior Tippit being shot he didn't do it. Witnesses in the shoe store, staff or whoever it was, might have compromised Brewer's story and ultimately busted the WC timeline. Big trouble ahead.
For the record, the great idea came from this guy...
That should settle any confusion as to where it originated from.
For the record, the great idea came from this guy...
That should settle any confusion as to where it originated from.
For the record, the great idea came from this guy...
That should settle any confusion as to where it originated from.
So now the owner of the chain of shoe stores is in on the conspiracy?
When the conspirators held their 10th year anniversary get together back in '73 they must have hired a venue like Shea Stadium so everyone in on the plot could attend.
From the Brewer website:
This website is being administered on behalf of Johnny Calvin Brewer, who asks that you please NOT contact him in order to discuss assassination theories and / or engage in conversation about the events of November 22nd, 1963. Subsequently his email is being kept confidential and private.
Too bad the WC missed the opportunity to do their job.
From the Brewer website:A serious researcher won't take no for an answer.
This website is being administered on behalf of Johnny Calvin Brewer, who asks that you please NOT contact him in order to discuss assassination theories and / or engage in conversation about the events of November 22nd, 1963. Subsequently his email is being kept confidential and private.
Too bad the WC missed the opportunity to do their job.
Then please clarify...
I was asking what you would say if other people came forward to support what Brewer said and to confirm the WC timeline. I also asked why, if it is being suggested that Brewer was saying what the WC wanted, why weren't more people 'encouraged' to provide supporting testimony.
I perfectly realize that this part of his testimony is uncorroborated.
Did you miss this part?
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.
How many of those confirmed Oswald's time of entry?
They were watching a movie FFS. Why would they notice another movie goer then check their wrist watches?
Man, it didn't take long for this thread to become absurd.
I was going to make the same point but let it pass. Walk:
I was asking what you would say if other people came forward to support what Brewer said and to confirm the WC timeline
50+ years later I would be ultra skeptical although level of detail would mean something.
I also asked why, if it is being suggested that Brewer was saying what the WC wanted, why weren't more people 'encouraged' to provide supporting testimony.
As suggested you need to look closer at the evidence, the "Tippit witnesses" is a great start.
You may also ask yourself why the hero was waiting in line to until December 6 to deliver his affidavit.
@Newbies
Unspeakably Awful
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2009/12/unspeakably-awful.html
OK, I read your request in a broader perspective not specific to the (alleged) shoe store sighting.
Negative on anyone else than Brewer.
The irony is that you also rarely post evidence and instead rely on your memory where everything is dishonestly stripped back to its barest essentials and numbers like 3 magically become 2.
Remember that it is a "strawman" argument to suggest that anyone here is alleging that Brewer's actions were nefarious or that he was part of a conspiracy. CTers are apparently just questioning his motives to pass the time without meaning to imply anything that would require them to actually provide any proof or a narrative that makes sense of how a random shoe salesman in Dallas get recruited into the plot and how they somehow ensure that Oswald walks past his store and into TT as part of the frame up scenario.
Which radio station, you ask? Well, Likely one of the stations reporting the assassination. You'll have to find out if Brewer was switching stations.
Searching around on the internet last night I saw a reference to KLIF having broadcast the news of a Dallas police officer having been shot at 1.33pm. I tried to find more on this and found that you can actually listen to the radio broadcasts from KLIF which are recorded and preserved so listened to them from just before the news of the shots in Dealey Plaza came through.
You may want to attack the problem from a different angle... from the police tapes:
Dispatcher 10-4. We have information that a suspect just went in the Texas Theater on West Jefferson.
79 10-4.
Dispatcher Supposed to be hiding in the balcony.
79 10-4.
85 (Ptm. R.W. Walker) 85 out that way.
Dispatcher 10-4.
followed by:
550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) 550/2.
Dispatcher 550/2.
550/2 Do you have any additional information on this Oak Cliff suspect?
492 (CID) 492, out Texas Theater.
Dispatcher 10-4.
Dispatcher They think he is at Texas Theater, 550/2.
508 (Crime Lab/ W.E. Barnes) 508.
. . . meet (?)
Dispatcher 85 at Texas Theater, 550/2.
550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) 10-4.
Dispatcher In the balcony.
Who tracked the suspect to the balcony and furnished that information to the dispatcher?
Saint Patsy didn't purchase a movie ticket.
Postal's box office booth was flush with the storefronts.
Brewer saw Saint Patsy approach the theater and then disappear from view.
Had Saint Patsy stopped in front of the booth to purchase a ticket, Brewer would have been able to see the transaction.
Additionally, the box office only opened at 1:15 PM
and Postal had sold a total of 14 tickets, mostly to patrons that were waiting for the office to open for the first show.
Postal's testimony provides some insight on the balcony. Does anyone have a map of the balcony to confirm where the stairs were? Were there more than one set of stairs to the balcony?
Cool. Lucky pick by Brewer and his buddies.
Mr. BREWER - We were listening to a transistor radio there in the store, just listening to a regular radio program, and they broke in with the bulletin that the President had been shot. And from then, that is all there was. We listened to all of the events.
Worth looking into who his buddies were?
The buddies were two unidentified "IBM men" who weren't customers but apparently just liked lounging around his shoe store (as IBM men do) and I guess he wasn't too worried about abandoning his store with them in there.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=9&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=9&tab=page)
I was asking what you would say if other people came forward to support what Brewer said and to confirm the WC timeline
50+ years later I would be ultra skeptical although level of detail would mean something.
I also asked why, if it is being suggested that Brewer was saying what the WC wanted, why weren't more people 'encouraged' to provide supporting testimony.
As suggested you need to look closer at the evidence, the "Tippit witnesses" is a great start.
You may also ask yourself why the hero was waiting in line to until December 6 to deliver his affidavit.
The buddies were two unidentified "IBM men" who weren't customers but apparently just liked lounging around his shoe store (as IBM men do) and I guess he wasn't too worried about abandoning his store with them in there.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=9&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=9&tab=page)
Tell us how many witnesses to Brewer's timeline would be needed to convince you that he was accurate. One would not be enough, I suspect. You lot would just call him a liar, anyway.
Where specifically does it say the dispatcher broadcasts ideas?
You have one on your hand?
On my hand? Is English your first language?
Try
'in hand'
or 'on hand'
And try reading a page or more beyond John's Ferrell page link and discover that Brewr said something to the IBM-without-quotes gents about going to 'check'.
We already know where misinformation usually originate from.
This is what your hero reported back to Postal:
Mr. BELIN - Then you went upstairs. Did you see him upstairs?
Mr. BREWER - No; I couldn't see anything upstairs.
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear any noises there?
Mr. BREWER - When we first went down to the exit by the stage, we heard a seat pop up, but couldn't see anybody. And we never did see him. But we went back and upstairs and checked, and we came down and went back to the box office and told Julia that we hadn't seen him.
Mr. BELIN - Julia Postal is the cashier?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; and she called the police, and we went----Butch went to the front exit, and I went down by the stage to the back exit and stood there until the police came.
Balcony double checked -- no cigar, but nice try.
Brewer said he "couldn't see anything upstairs." That can mean it was too dark to tell whether Oswald was there or not. All it means is that they didn't see Oswald anywhere - upstairs or down in a dark theater. But they knew he had gone in and somehow got past Burroughs without being noticed.
This was discussed earlier. I think it came from the idea that that is where people (kids) who had sneaked in before had tended to go, prior experience. I don't see it as suspicious, do you?
How did they know that he had gone in? Neither Brewer, Postal, or Burroughs saw anyone go in at that time, and Brewer and Burroughs did not see him when they checked the balcony and the theater area.
The buddies were two unidentified "IBM men" who weren't customers but apparently just liked lounging around his shoe store (as IBM men do) and I guess he wasn't too worried about abandoning his store with them in there.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=9&tab=page (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=9&tab=page)
LNers love this particular strawman.
I don't have any evidence, but if I did you wouldn't believe it anyway. Therefore I'm right.
I don't care what somebody in the thread was guessing.
Focus: Who told dispatch the suspect was hiding in the balcony?
That's the interesting question. If not Postal somebody else called in or furnished that info.
Police reports confirm arriving officers (front) were directed, possibly by Postal, to the balcony.
BALL, in his continued line of failures, failed to settle that issue leaving the possibility open that Oswald was set up at the TT.
You've read this one by Detective Toney?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metapth337070/
Who was the manager on duty?
Who was the young man on top of stairs?
Did suspect pass man on stairs and if so when?
Have you seen any of those (or similar) questions asked by the WC?
Nice essay --- I understand why you suddenly lost interest.
Cases are solved by collecting and analyzing (repeatedly) minutiae so you're headed down the wrong track if you have an ambition of understanding what happened.
Ian Griggs certainly proved your point by outperforming the million dollar Warren Commission 30 years after the fact.
The more skilled online amateurs continue to expose the lies of the WC is that why you stay online?
Tired Nutter straw man. Who claimed minutia should be viewed in isolation?
I don't care what somebody in the thread was guessing.
Focus: Who told dispatch the suspect was hiding in the balcony?
That's the interesting question. If not Postal somebody else called in or furnished that info.
Police reports confirm arriving officers (front) were directed, possibly by Postal, to the balcony.
BALL, in his continued line of failures, failed to settle that issue leaving the possibility open that Oswald was set up at the TT.
You've read this one by Detective Toney?
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark%3A/67531/metapth337070/
Who was the manager on duty?
Who was the young man on top of stairs?
Did suspect pass man on stairs and if so when?
Have you seen any of those (or similar) questions asked by the WC?
Brewer said he "couldn't see anything upstairs." That can mean it was too dark to tell whether Oswald was there or not. All it means is that they didn't see Oswald anywhere - upstairs or down in a dark theater. But they knew he had gone in and somehow got past Burroughs without being noticed. Postal knew from experience that it was possible to elude Burroughs in the foyer by heading up the balcony stairs upon entering the theatre because some kids had apparently done that in the past. It seems entirely reasonable that this became the basis of the balcony report.
If only you had evidence for your story.
Cases are solved by professional investigators trained to recognise significant details but also to consider how people react and behave and not to get lost in minutiae, not by online amateur sleuths looking for things which they think supports their beliefs.
Looking at the minutiae is not on its own an issue but each detail should not be viewed in isolation but should be viewed with an over view and feeling for the bigger picture and how people act in difficult situations.
The WC was flawed and there were clearly attempts to cover things up. That doesn't mean necessarily that there was a conspiracy before the event, nor that the overall conclusion of the WC, that LHO acted alone, is wrong.
I judge from what I see and read on here and elsewhere.
We know Postal called the police. We know she thought the man was in the balcony because he had not been seen by Burroughs in the lobby and she knew from past experience that a way to avoid Burroughs was to head directly up the stairs upon entering the TT to the balcony. She made a logical inference that may or may not have been correct. Oswald very well could have gone up to the balcony and cut across to avoid the lobby and Burroughs. So Postal is the obvious source of the balcony report.
It's in her testimony. Clear as day. She thought the man had gone to the balcony because Burroughs did not see him pass through the lobby. Burroughs came to the same conclusion as he confirmed in his testimony. Postal called the police. The police received a report that the man was in the balcony. 2+2=4.
Julia Postal said that Oswald had a panicked look on his face "Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he ducked in" as he passed her yet she didn't see him go past her.
"Mr. BALL. And you didn't see him actually enter the theatre then?
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You hadn't seen him go by you?
Mrs. POSTAL. I knew he didn't go by me, because I was facing west, and Johnny, he had come up from east which meant he didn't go back that way. He had come from east going west. "
If she didn't see him go past her, how could she see he had a panicked look on his face?
Except for -- what part of this tale made him a "suspect?"
Julia Postal said that Oswald had a panicked look on his face "Mrs. POSTAL. Yes; and when the sirens went by he had a panicked look on his face, and he ducked in" as he passed her yet she didn't see him go past her.
"Mr. BALL. And you didn't see him actually enter the theatre then?
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You hadn't seen him go by you?
Mrs. POSTAL. I knew he didn't go by me, because I was facing west, and Johnny, he had come up from east which meant he didn't go back that way. He had come from east going west. "
If she didn't see him go past her, how could she see he had a panicked look on his face?
So we can agree that Postal was the source of the balcony report before moving on to something that has been discussed a million times already? Postal knew the president had been assassinated a short distance away. Police cars are flying up and down the road right in front of her. A man is observed by her and Brewer appearing to hide from the police by ducking away from the street whenever a police car goes by. He enters her theatre without buying a ticket (a crime). She simply reports a person acting suspiciously under the totality of circumstances. She has no idea whether this is the person the police are looking for or not. Just that he is behaving like someone trying to hide from the police. Which, of course, was exactly what he was doing. There is no great mystery here.
False premise.
Postal did not interact with Burroughs, she sent in Brewer. You don't know what she inferred based on Brewer's feedback.
What we know is, based on the evidence, that the WC failed to establish the source for "hiding in balcony" by dispatch.
No, we can't. The dispatcher logs EVERY call, thus, it should be easy to show who did call, but you can't. Why is that?
4 miles is NOT a short distance. Neither one of them were trained or qualified to judge what was suspicious behavior. Furthermore , as we have seen in this thread there is serious doubt that either of them even saw the man as claimed.
Next false assumption.
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; I told Johnny this, don't tell him, because he is an excitable person, and just have him, you know, go with you and examine the exits and check real good, so, he came back and said he hadn't seen anything although, he had heard a seat pop up like somebody getting out, but there was nobody around that area....
Brewer does not report back what Burroughs might have told him. Suspect is currently not to be seen.
Correct, it real simple.
You have no clue what Burroughs saw and what conclusions he reached. Neither did Postal since she didn't talk to Burroughs.
As per her testimony.
Mr. BALL. I was trying to say the third row. How could he get from the balcony down there?
Mrs. POSTAL. Oh, that is very easy. You can go up in the balcony and fight straight down, those steps come back down, and that would bring you into it. He wouldn't have to go by Butch at all.
The suspect could be anywhere in that theater.
As per her testimony.
No, your Von Pein style LN spin doesn't cut it.
Totally irrelevant what Burroughs testified since he was not in the loop, Postal cut him out and did not know what he saw or didn't see.
The suspect had free rein to move around once past Burroughs.
As per Postals testimony.
You're bust on this one.
Known bypass is via balcony but not confined to balcony as per testimony.
Once past Burroughs suspect can be anywhere in the theater, ticket or no ticket.
Burroughs' observations are unknown to Postal and thus irrelevant for her call.
Brewer isn't standing directly in front of the theater so I guess it's accurate that 55 years later a troll could state Brewer didn't see Saint Patsy enter the theater.
It's in her testimony. Clear as day. She thought the man had gone to the balcony because Burroughs did not see him pass through the lobby.
A man is observed by her and Brewer appearing to hide from the police by ducking away from the street whenever a police car goes by.
Brutal. Postal knows that a man has entered without a ticket.
She knows Burroughs is the ticket taker working in the lobby. She knows the man cannot get past Burroughs without a ticket.
The man has also not come out of the theatre.
Therefore he has gained access to the theatre without encountering Burroughs.
It's just a fact -- Brewer didn't see the guy he was looking at from behind and 50 yards away enter the theater.
There's nothing you won't misrepresent, including what a "troll" is. Repeatedly kicking the crap out of your lame arguments does not make somebody a troll.
I agree Brewer didn't see Saint Patsy enter the theater.
Let me know when you're going to begin repeatedly kicking the crap out of my lame arguments because all I've seen so far is 'Oswald's rifle, LOL'.
Be gone, Troll.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" -- Christopher Hitchens
Let me know when you actually have some evidence that it was Oswald's rifle.
Does the log still exist? Have you seen it to confirm that it does not contain Postal's call? If it is simply not available to check, that is not evidence of anything. Regardless, you would allege it was forged or that there was no "corroborating" witness to information recorded therein etc. What we have is Postal's sworn testimony and affidavit that she made the call. And the police responded to that call. I'm not aware of any other CTer that questions whether Postal made the call to the DPD. It is absurd and highlights an outlandish struggle against reality.
So you're back to 'there is no evidence that it was Saint Patsy's rifle' ?
Carpio, I'll probably regret asking this, but why do you think Saint Patsy went to the movies ?
Brutal. Postal knows that a man has entered without a ticket. She knows Burroughs is the ticket taker working in the lobby. She knows the man cannot get past Burroughs without a ticket. The man has also not come out of the theatre. Therefore he has gained access to the theatre without encountering Burroughs. Postal reconciles these facts with the conclusion that the man has gone to the balcony to explain how he has avoided Burroughs. If he has gone to the balcony area, then that is the most likely place for him to be a couple minutes later when she calls the police. What is so difficult to understand about that obvious point? As confirmed in her testimony. You don't accept this explanation but you will entertain an outlandish and baseless counternarrative in which all these people are lying for some unknown reason and that there was an Oswald double. Unreal.
That is actually a good question Geek. Here is my answer.
Quote on
10) Why did LHO go to a movie theater after allegedly shooting the president and a police officer?
Does this make any sense IF we believe what the WC told us? Is this the normal reaction for most people? I mean the Mexican border was not that far away and research has shown NONE of the bus, rail or air terminals were alerted or blocked off so LHO could have hopped on any of these things and gotten clean away!
Yet he instead goes to a movie theater! Why?
If you know what he means, why don't you answer his question?
I did. I pointed to the Ferrell page re IBM men and Brewer
You brainiacs want to pretend that no one was with Brewer to mind the store
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=10&tab=page
I did. I pointed to the Ferrell page re IBM men and Brewer
You brainiacs want to pretend that no one was with Brewer to mind the store
Way to take credit for something I told you about.
The "IBM men" just make the whole thing more suspicious. These guys who lounge around a shoestore on a Friday afternoon ended up locking up for him? So these guys whose names he can't remember had a key?
The "IBM men" just make the whole thing more suspicious
>>> To you. My condolences...
Sure, just like a guy staring at shoes is suspicious to you.
Way to take credit for something I told you about.
The "IBM men" just make the whole thing more suspicious. These guys who lounge around a shoestore on a Friday afternoon ended up locking up for him? So these guys whose names he can't remember had a key?
No wonder he thought that he should have been fired.
[...] She notices him enough to see a "panicked look on his face" and to think he's "running from the police" (even though he wasn't running), and then decides to just turn around and look the other way? Then Brewer immediately comes up to her and asks about the man and she doesn't know what man or whether or not he bought a ticket? I think she just didn't want to admit that she supposedly let a guy sneak by her without noticing him at all.
Where does he say he thought he should be fired?
I understand he thought he was going to be fired.
They are quite different things. Maybe it's too subtle for you.
Not only did he not get fired but rather he was promoted. That's what the owner thought of Brewer's efforts.
I guess the owner was a CIA operative intent on keeping Brewer quiet about his real role on the 22nd?
Absolutely. Saying you thought you were going to be fired is different from saying you thought you should be fired.
No, but someone hiding from the police
and then going on to hide in a theater
is definitely suspicious and warrants further investigation and per chance the guy they find assaults a Police Officer and has a concealed weapon,
OMG! Two acquaintances of Brewer's lounging in his store. And they were from IBM, no less. Doesn't get any more sinister and diabolical than that !
Yep, the IBM guys and Brewer are suspicious, but Saint Patsy isn't.
There's no end to the troll insanity.
Human beings are hard-wired to quickly and instinctively read the emotions written on the faces and expressions of other human beings. I doubt it took more than a second for her to decide "that man" (hereafter, TM) was "panicky", if even that long. And she didn't associate the man with the notion of "running from the police" until at least after Johnny Brewer went in to see if he could find him.
Brewer didn't start in the direction of the Texas Theatre until after he saw TM disappear into the theater entrance 240 feet away from where Brewer was standing, so "immediately" may not be the best word to describe the period between TM walk into the theater's entrance recess until Brewer got Postal's attention.
So the 1:40 Oswald murdered Tippit ?
Was that the Oswald that was arrested ?
Oh wait, I forgot both Oswald's were arrested in the TT.
Actually Trolletti, I figured it out a long time ago. Not that I needed to figure it out, Brewer explains what Saint Patsy did to arouse his suspicions in the interview you linked to.
And considering the number of witnesses that identified Oswald as the man they saw holding a pistol, emptying shells and fleeing the scene of Tippit's murder....
Uncorroborated. What a shame BELIN forgot to read the transcript of his own interview:
Mr. BREWER - We were listening to a transistor radio there in the store, just listening to a regular radio program, and they broke in with the bulletin that the President had been shot. And from then, that is all there was. We listened to all of the events.
The two IBM guys with a shoe fetish would have been just what he needed --- or maybe they would have been exactly what the WC didn't need.
Trolletti, Brewer does a very good job of describing his encounter with your hero and explaining why he trailed him to the theater.
Thanks for linking the interview, Troll.
Not really. He thought he was going to be fired because he obviously thought that he did something deserving of it.
So it's absurd just because you call it absurd? How does one Oswald get arrested in the main theater and taken out the front, another guy get arrested in the balcony, and another guy get taken out the back? How is one Oswald buying popcorn at 1:07 and another one shooting Tippit? How does one Oswald exit the front door of the TSDB and walk east on Elm to catch a bus, another one runs down and gets in a Rambler, and a third one goes out the back door of the building? How is one Oswald at work at the TSBD while another one is buying beer and peco brittle at the Jiffy store? Those things are what I call absurd.
But I guess it's a lot easier to call people names than to present coherent counter-arguments.
So you don't believe that all of those Oswald 'sightings' are attribute to multiple Oswalds. That's interesting.
The real Oswald was wherever the Warren Commission wanted him to be at any particular time.
So it's absurd just because you call it absurd? How does one Oswald get arrested in the main theater and taken out the front, another guy get arrested in the balcony, and another guy get taken out the back? How is one Oswald buying popcorn at 1:07 and another one shooting Tippit? How does one Oswald exit the front door of the TSDB and walk east on Elm to catch a bus, another one runs down and gets in a Rambler, and a third one goes out the back door of the building? How is one Oswald at work at the TSBD while another one is buying beer and peco brittle at the Jiffy store? Those things are what I call absurd.
But I guess it's a lot easier to call people names than to present coherent counter-arguments.
Think this through a minute, Mitch. She sees a panicky looking guy coming toward her and her first instinct is to turn her back on him and look the other way?I'm pretty sure that in the one o'clock hour that afternoon, there were plenty of people with shocked, panicky, startled, lost, etc looks on their faces. And I doubt panicky faces were unheard of at other times, either. There's no reason to assume that she necessarily must have immediately associated that panicky look with suspicious or threatening behavior
Perhaps not, but how long do you really think Postal stood there staring west?I would say, something like on the order of 20 seconds.
Trolletti, Brewer does a very good job of describing his encounter with your hero and explaining why he trailed him to the theater.
Thanks for linking the interview, Troll.
I prefer the "Saint Oz" that Dave Von Pein used. Your Saint Patsy may cost you your LNer membership card.
You obviously missed my 464 part series (with more to come) that dealt with the evidence and how the WC misrepresented it. It has been removed twice. One time by a hack and one time because the LNers whined and complained about it until it was removed.
In case you haven't noticed the LNers do NOT want to discuss or cite the actual evidence found in the twenty-six volumes and CD's. I have tried for many years.
By the way, my comment is not about diversion as Brewer testified to thinking that he was going to be fired, but instead received a promotion. That is relevant.
And the lack of content is right up your alley. Thumb1:
Nah. We enjoy Howard's mocking of you silly buggers
That comment is Fantasy land stuff. Oswald was where the evidence indicates;
the TSBD;
his rooming house;
the Tippet murder scene;
the Texas Theater;
a basement car park;
his grave.
I'm pretty sure that in the one o'clock hour that afternoon, there were plenty of people with shocked, panicky, startled, lost, etc looks on their faces. And I doubt panicky faces were unheard of at other times, either.
There's no reason to assume that she necessarily must have immediately associated that panicky look with suspicious or threatening behavior
I prefer the "Saint Oz" that Dave Von Pein used. Your Saint Patsy may cost you your LNer membership card.
Your OPs are ridiculously long on purpose in order to prevent sane people from taking the time to read them.
I'm still waiting for a CT to answer the question posed in the title of this thread; Why did Oswald go to the movies ?
Although I was being facetious when I proposed that Saint Patsy was bored and hungry and heard that the buttered popcorn in the TT was delicious, it's better than any answer I've seen from the kooks drooling about double Oswalds and one particular troll that still can't accept the fact that his hero was apprehended because a shoe store manager thought Saint Patsy was acting suspiciously.
I say Oswald wound up in the TT not because he was 'going to the movies', but because he was in flight after murdering Tippit (and JFK).
What do you Saint Patsy defenders think ?
I find it hard to believe, in view of what happened right under his nose in Dealy Plaza, that Saint Patsy went to the TT because he was more interested in watching a couple of war movies than finding out what happened at 12:30 PM.
This is where you CT's get to spin a yarn explaining why Saint Patsy went to the movies.
Start spinning.
I'm still waiting for a CT to answer the question posed in the title of this thread; Why did Oswald go to the movies ?
Although I was being facetious when I proposed that Saint Patsy was bored and hungry and heard that the buttered popcorn in the TT was delicious, it's better than any answer I've seen from the kooks drooling about double Oswalds and one particular troll that still can't accept the fact that his hero was apprehended because a shoe store manager thought Saint Patsy was acting suspiciously.
I say Oswald wound up in the TT not because he was 'going to the movies', but because he was in flight after murdering Tippit (and JFK).
What do you Saint Patsy defenders think ?
I find it hard to believe, in view of what happened right under his nose in Dealy Plaza, that Saint Patsy went to the TT because he was more interested in watching a couple of war movies than finding out what happened at 12:30 PM.
This is where you CT's get to spin a yarn explaining why Saint Patsy went to the movies.
Start spinning.
You don't buy that Oswald was moving along in Mr. Magoo-like bliss while murder and mayhem followed in his path? He had the misfortune to look exactly like the suspect? He had the misfortune to do some window shopping for shoes for his little girl at the exact moment a police car passed raising unreasonable suspicion in the sinister shoe salesman/master spy/liar Johnny Brewer? Then he encounters another liar/spy in Julia Postal cleverly stationed by the CIA beginning in 1952 in her ticket booth for just this occasion. Hapless Oswald buys a ticket from her, calmly walks into the theatre and gives his ticket to Burroughs, buys some popcorn. He doesn't appear to notice all of his doubles roaming about. At this point fascist cops try to violate his rights by asking him a question and he does what every innocent person would do, he punches them and tries to pull his gun. His guilt is an obvious product of bad luck, random citizens who were willing to lie to frame him, and on and on.
You don't buy that Oswald was moving along in Mr. Magoo-like bliss while murder and mayhem followed in his path? He had the misfortune to look exactly like the suspect?
He had the misfortune to do some window shopping for shoes for his little girl at the exact moment a police car passed raising unreasonable suspicion in the sinister shoe salesman/master spy/liar Johnny Brewer?
Then he encounters another liar/spy in Julia Postal cleverly stationed by the CIA beginning in 1952 in her ticket booth for just this occasion.
Hapless Oswald buys a ticket from her, calmly walks into the theatre and gives his ticket to Burroughs, buys some popcorn. He doesn't appear to notice all of his doubles roaming about.
At this point fascist cops try to violate his rights by asking him a question
and he does what every innocent person would do, he punches them and tries to pull his gun.
I'm not interested in why George went to the movies.
A guy on foot with no money or assistance wasn't going to make it very far that day.
Why would you be waiting if you know the answer?
While you're waiting....how did NOT buying a ticket improve his chances of not being intercepted by Burroughs once inside the theater?
Oswald wasn't shot down in the theater. So I guess this elaborate plan didn't work out too well.
Maybe if there weren't civilians around hearing him yell "I am not resisting arrest", he would have been. At least the cops showed that much restraint.That wasn't really necessary?
Whew. That reads like "Murder on the Orient Express." Why would your fantasy conspirators need to arrange a rendezvous with Oswald if they just wanted him to be arrested? He was going to be arrested sooner or later. A guy on foot with no money or assistance wasn't going to make it very far that day. Safer to let it play out on its own. But instead they arrange this elaborate scenario involving random citizens, Jack Ruby, doubles etc who they somehow coerce to lie on their behalf in the murder of the president? I like the part about "[d]ark theaters are classic espionage rendezvous." LOL. Next time I go to the movies I'll keep a lookout for the KGB and CIA operatives. I sincerely hope that you don't actually believe any of this but are just conjuring up ad hoc explanations to pass the time. It's like the rationale used on Ancient Aliens to link historical events to UFOs. Nonsense.
Next time I go to the movies I'll keep a lookout for the KGB and CIA operatives
Don't forget to look for Iacoletti's "IBM" men
8)
I'm sure there were. But for some reason they weren't automatically considered murder suspects.
Exactly.
They're Brewer's IBM men, and they lounge around in (and lock up) shoe stores, not movie theaters.
They're Brewer's IBM men, and they lounge around in (and lock up) shoe stores, not movie theaters.
Nah. We enjoy Howard's mocking of you silly buggers
Your OPs are ridiculously long on purpose in order to prevent sane people from taking the time to read them. You can then convince yourself that nobody can refute you... since no one responds. Even CTers don't respond to your polls in numbers that would show any kind of solidarity FFS
Thanks, Bill.
For a moment there I was really worried about losing my membership card.
:D ;D
LOL. You sound desperate. The truth is that you CANNOT refute the evidence that shows a conspiracy took place in the twenty-six volumes. And yet, you support the WC's conclusion despite them offering NO supporting evidence.
Why is that?
that shows a conspiracy took place
Isn't it interesting that the nutters think that sarcastic condescending nicknames are evidence?
And the only way you know about these IBM men is because Brewer told you, wow that's really sinister! Hahaha!
JohnM
To you lot, Oswald is the last person on the planet to suspect
Sounds more like a confession than mocking.
Ok Rob, if you can show a conspiracy then tell us who and who?
JohnM
And the only way you know about these IBM men is because Brewer told you, wow that's really sinister! Hahaha!
Give me a reason to suspect him.
Give me a reason to suspect anyone else
He's mocking you lot, Sherlock
I never said Brewer was sinister. You're just not very good at this, are you?
It's a bizarre story, nonetheless.
I never said Brewer was sinister.
You're just not very good at this, are you?
It's a bizarre story, nonetheless.
Well as seen above, I'm just honest and I don't have to make up stuff.
Again you opinion which is based on evidence that you only found out because of Brewer?
That's a laugh. You make up all kinds of stuff, like "Oswald was photographed with the rifle".
What's your point? Markham's bizarre claims were only found out because of Markham too.
What's your point? Markham's bizarre claims were only found out because of Markham too.
Is that why you whined and cried until my series was removed? Why couldn't you just cite additional evidence to show that the WC's claims were correct?
Yeah kinda like Roger Craig.
What did Roger Craig say that was bizarre? Did he talk to the dead too?
What did Roger Craig say that was bizarre?
Did he talk to the dead too?
Hahaha!
Your non-answer noted.
Laughing is an answer.
Btw why did you edit out supporting evidence of Markham? Honest John strikes again!
What supporting evidence of Markham? Cimino said he groaned. Markham said he tried to talk to her and he knew she was there, and she tried to save his life. She also said she was alone screaming for help for 5-10 minutes and that she used the police radio to call for help. She also claimed her own tape recorded voice was not her and she didn't ever have that conversation.
Bizarre.
Roger Craig was a Deputy Sheriff of The Year.
Roger Craig was a Deputy Sheriff of The Year.
Yeah and Bill Cosby was a decent family man.
Markham elevated Tippit's head and comforted him.
From the time it happened till the time the ambulance arrived, wasn't instantaneous.
Who the heck can recognize their own voice from a recording?
Your non-answer noted.
What life saving technique is that? By the way, when did she say that?
Do you believe that she was alone by herself that entire time? So much for all of your other supposed witnesses I guess!
It wasn't just that she didn't recognize her voice. She denied ever having the conversation.
Mrs. MARKHAM. I never talked to that man.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is that not your voice on the tape?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I can't tell about my voice, but that man--I never talked to no woman or no man like that.
. . .
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, at this point you were shaking your head, what do you mean by that?
Mrs. MARKHAM. This man--I have never talked with. This lady was never on the telephone. This man that called me like I told you, he told me he was from the city hall, the police department, the police department of the city hall.
Bizarre.
"Oswald's rifle, LOL" noted.
So what are we left with, Markham sees a murder goes over and comforts the man and then later can't recognize her own voice. Is that the best you got?
Conspicuously missing: any actual evidence that C2766 was Oswald's rifle.
No, I have more.
- Tippit tried to talk to her and knew she was there, even though he was killed instantly.
- She was there all by herself screaming for help for 5-10 minutes but nobody responded.
- She tried to save Tippit's life.
- She tried to use Tippit's police radio to call for help.
- Said the man talked to Tippit through the passenger side window, but it was rolled up.
- Said Benavides was a policeman (wait, I thought she was alone)
- Said 6 times that she didn't recognize anyone in the police lineup, but picked Oswald because he looked at her and she fell over.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
- Tippit tried to talk to her and knew she was there, even though he was killed instantly.
- She was there all by herself screaming for help for 5-10 minutes but nobody responded.
- She tried to save Tippit's life.
- She tried to use Tippit's police radio to call for help.
- Said the man talked to Tippit through the passenger side window, but it was rolled up.
- Said Benavides was a policeman (wait, I thought she was alone)
- Said 6 times that she didn't recognize anyone in the police lineup, but picked Oswald because he looked at her and she fell over
Oswald ordered the rifle.
Oswald was photographed with the rifle.
Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
Oswald's rifle was found at his work.
Btw we know that you will do a point by point try refutation but this time stick to your guns and don't allude to any body else's involvement.
Yeah the ambulance took time to respond, so what?
As I said she attempted to comfort Tippit and keeping someone calm is part and parcel of saving someone's life.
Prove that she didn't.
The quarter window was wide open. You've been told and shown this yet you still persist? And then you wonder why everyone calls you Dishonest John.
Wow, she didn't know who everybody was or what they did.
Who are you trying to convince with this, she didn't understand the question but she goes on directly to say the man was the Number 2 man, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Is this it, that's your evidence for why Markham was "bizarre"? Yawn!
Yes you do. Pity that you don't have any evidence to support it.
The usual argument by personal attack. Conspicuously missing: any actual evidence that C2766 was Oswald's rifle.
Already given. The question is irrelevant and unanswerable. Like "Richard" said, get a Ouija board.
So it's back to the 'no evidence' mantra ? Really ?
I'm sure there were. But for some reason they weren't automatically considered murder suspects.Julia Postal didn't think he was. Not at first.
How many of them were behaving like they were avoiding the police in the aftermath of not one but two major crimes?
How many snuck into a theater without buying a ticket? The latter, IIRC, is considered criminal trespass in Texas and is a class B misdemeanor. The police had Oswald just on that.
ALL BY HERSELF, Mytton?
Your desperation is showing.
Are you suggesting the dictabelt transcripts are not complete? Interesting...
When did she say anything about the vent window? She said the passenger side window was rolled down.
Did Benavides have a police uniform on?
It's bizarre that she didn't understand "Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?"
How much do you need? Why do you have this bizarre need to try to explain her bizarre statements away? Still not a single bizarre thing that Roger Craig said then?
ALL BY HERSELF, Mytton?
Your desperation is showing.
Are you suggesting the dictabelt transcripts are not complete? Interesting...
When did she say anything about the vent window? She said the passenger side window was rolled down.
Did Benavides have a police uniform on?
It's bizarre that she didn't understand "Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?"
How much do you need?
Why do you have this bizarre need to try to explain her bizarre statements away?
Still not a single bizarre thing that Roger Craig said then?
Still don't have any evidence that C2766 was Oswald's rifle? Really?
The sum total evidence that he was "avoiding the police": He looked funny and scared to Brewer.
That would have been really hard for them to prove, given that nobody actually saw or remembered him entering the theater. And he wasn't arrested for criminal trespass, he was arrested for murder.
The sum total evidence that he was "avoiding the police": He looked funny and scared to Brewer.
That would have been really hard for them to prove, given that nobody actually saw or remembered him entering the theater.
And he wasn't arrested for criminal trespass, he was arrested for murder.
Oh, please. Give it up already. Do we really need to go over this again ?
The evidence you claim doesn't exist is presented to you, then you try to dispute the evidence, then you go back to claiming it doesn't exist.
Is there a single piece of evidence in the case that you accept ?
There's no evidence you accept, you spend your entire time here insinuating that every piece of evidence is tainted or fabricated, yet at the same time claim you're not suggesting a conspiracy to frame Oswald.
Or do I have that wrong ?
What evidence against Oswald do you accept ?
Do you think there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald ? If so, name some names already.
Should we start with Johnny Brewer ?
(http://i64.tinypic.com/282l05l.jpg)
ALL BY HERSELF, Mytton?
Your desperation is showing.
Are you suggesting the dictabelt transcripts are not complete? Interesting...
When did she say anything about the vent window? She said the passenger side window was rolled down.
Did Benavides have a police uniform on?
It's bizarre that she didn't understand "Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?"
How much do you need? Why do you have this bizarre need to try to explain her bizarre statements away? Still not a single bizarre thing that Roger Craig said then?
More than that. Police cars are approaching Brewer's store from the East, sirens blazing. A somewhat disheveled That Man (again, hereafter TM) tucks into the vestibule at the store's entrance. He doesn't enter, but just stands there just outside the door and keeps his back turned to the street. Brewer notices that TM is staring (as you like to point out), but he's not staring at the merchandise in the store or the display cases on either side of the vestibule. The police cars make a U-turn at Zang, half a block short of reaching the shoe store, and head back to the East. TM looks over his shoulder, then proceeds in a Westerly direction, away from where the police cars came from. TM continues on until he reaches the Texas Theatre, when Brewer sees TM disappear into the recess at the front of the theater. Brewer walks to the theater, doesn't see the guy reappear, and notices TM isn't in front of the theater when Brewer gets there. Brewer realizes that TM had to have entered the theater, and asks the ticket clerk whether she'd sold TM a ticket. He gets a negative response; the guy snuck in. You might be the only sucker alive who couldn't see that as suspicious and evasive behavior.How many of them were behaving like they were avoiding the police in the aftermath of not one but two major crimes?The sum total evidence that he was "avoiding the police": He looked funny and scared to Brewer.
He was arrested after he struck a policeman and pulled a gun. Let me guess: you don't consider that suspicious behavior, either.How many snuck into a theater without buying a ticket? The latter, IIRC, is considered criminal trespass in Texas and is a class B misdemeanor. The police had Oswald just on that.That would have been really hard for them to prove, given that nobody actually saw or remembered him entering the theater. And he wasn't arrested for criminal trespass, he was arrested for murder.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/markham-eyes.png)
I didn't ask to read through your series all I want is an answer, who did it and why?
JohnM
You think that LHO did it. Where is your evidence for this?
What's the definition of ownership?
Oswald ordered the rifle.
Oswald was photographed with the rifle.
Oswald's prints were on the rifle.
Oswald's rifle was found at his work.
Btw we know that you will do a point by point try refutation but this time stick to your guns and don't allude to any body else's involvement.
JohnM
When are we ever going to see evidence for your claims? Naked assertions don't cut it.
When are we ever going to see evidence for your claims?
Naked assertions don't cut it.
Same goes for money orders?
Same goes for money orders?Those, you look at the signature on them. They have to be signed by the purchaser, you know. And the one I'll bet you're trying to change the subject to has a signature that has been conclusively determined to be Oswald's
Same goes for money orders?
Back from where?
I have, never needed the stub.
Quote me or move on.
Very stupid move by Duncan indeed.The best decision Duncan's made all year. It revitalized the board.
Go through my history and see multiple examples of where I post evidence, whereas your history just shows ideas and opinions.
Well you're the Master at "Naked Assertions" you had a massive series full of Personal Opinion and sickening Disinfo and I'm glad they're gone
JohnM
Hahaha right on schedule, when you have no answers out comes the bait and switch and again you don't let me down.
But anyway I will quickly go off topic with this powerfully incriminating evidence of Oswald's money order that was determined by at least two expert panels to be written by Oswald!
(https://i.postimg.cc/HL8cZv17/oswald_money_order.jpg)
JohnM
You don't need to shout and who's Mytton, I'm "Mytton"
I pointed out how she gave first aid, it's only your desperation that is showing.
How do the transcripts show someone trying?
The vent window was open. Markham assumed the window was rolled down, how does that impact her testimony?
What, plain clothes Policemen don't exist?
As your above list shows, your self serving interpretation of what is bizarre is nothing of the sort.
Oh, please. Give it up already. Do we really need to go over this again ?
The evidence you claim doesn't exist is presented to you, then you try to dispute the evidence, then you go back to claiming it doesn't exist.
Is there a single piece of evidence in the case that you accept ?
There's no evidence you accept, you spend your entire time here insinuating that every piece of evidence is tainted or fabricated, yet at the same time claim you're not suggesting a conspiracy to frame Oswald.
Or do I have that wrong ?
What evidence against Oswald do you accept ?
Do you think there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald ? If so, name some names already.
Should we start with Johnny Brewer ?
Brewer saw someone who was avoiding the Police then the Police find the same someone who has a gun and then tries to kill them with it, thank god for Brewer.
Thanks for reinforcing that Oswald must have snuck into the theater. Thumb1:
Well John, when you kill people you get arrested.
Initially Crapman was all excited about the Griggs interview --- that faded quickly.
Here's another one from Brewer, but first a few numbers from the WC:
"About six or seven people were seated on the theatre's main floor and an equal number in the balcony."
Postal (WC):
Mrs. POSTAL. Fourteen or twenty-four. I believe it was 24. Everything was happening so fast.
Brewer (WC):
Mr. BELIN - How many patrons were in the theatre at that time?
Mr. BREWER - I couldn't really tell. There weren't many, but it was dark and we couldn't see how many people were in there. There were 15 or 20, I would say, at the most, upstairs and downstairs.
Mr. BELIN - Together, 15 or 20?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
//
Mr. BREWER - When we first went down to the exit by the stage, we heard a seat pop up, but couldn't see anybody. And we never did see him. But we went back and upstairs and checked, and we came down and went back to the box office and told Julia that we hadn't seen him.
Brewer (Griggs):
JCB - [...] And I said 'Butch come on with me' and we went up into the balcony. And using the screen as a backlight we could see there were no heads up there.
ILG - So the balcony was totally empty?
JCB - Yeah.
Oops.... BS:
But is it Brewer or the Commission?
This is the Markham testimony that "honest" JohnI uses and this explains why he never likes to support his ideas with the actual evidence. :-X
Markham was clearly saying that she saw nobody around until she was at Tippit's side. Naughty naughty.
And here's the Markham-Tippit "conversation". Frank Cimino's FBI report said basically the same "but never said anything that he could understand." Naughty naughty, again.
He doesn't enter, but just stands there just outside the door and keeps his back turned to the street. Brewer notices that TM is staring (as you like to point out), but he's not staring at the merchandise in the store or the display cases on either side of the vestibule.
The police cars make a U-turn at Zang, half a block short of reaching the shoe store, and head back to the East. TM looks over his shoulder, then proceeds in a Westerly direction, away from where the police cars came from.
TM continues on until he reaches the Texas Theatre, when Brewer sees TM disappear into the recess at the front of the theater. Brewer walks to the theater, doesn't see the guy reappear, and notices TM isn't in front of the theater when Brewer gets there.
Brewer realizes that TM had to have entered the theater, and asks the ticket clerk whether she'd sold TM a ticket. He gets a negative response;
the guy snuck in. You might be the only sucker alive who couldn't see that as suspicious and evasive behavior.
He was arrested after he struck a policeman and pulled a gun. Let me guess: you don't consider that suspicious behavior, either.
The criminal trespass thing would in itself have created probable cause to arrest and search Oswald once Brewer pointed him out.
This perfectly sums up our differing approaches to this case, you deceitfully present an image with no context and no explanation, whereas I present it all and let the Jury decide.
Those, you look at the signature on them. They have to be signed by the purchaser, you know. And the one I'll bet you're trying to change the subject to has a signature that has been conclusively determined to be Oswald's
Ok, that's your honest experience and I respect that but if we never needed the stub then why do they tear the ticket in half and give us back the stub?
Very stupid move by Duncan indeed.
Like I said, I don't discuss unsupported claims about what I once may have said.
The Caprio cleansing was not related to a crash.
Your failure to answer my question has been noted; back on topic...Your question is nonsense. You want to imply that the lack of an existing receipt for the money order somehow invalidates it as evidence. However, there was no reason for Oswald to keep the PMO stub/receipt once he received and accepted the rifle, so the lack of a stub is neither unexpected nor exceptional. The handwriting on the actual money order has been authenticated as Oswald's signature, which ties it to him. That's all that's needed. Your huffy little aside demonstrates nothing other than you lack any real basis for argument, and would rather rely on vaporous insinuation rather than deal with the actual evidence.
Do you have some evidence that the Texas Theater tore the tickets in half and gave back the stub?If they didn't, they are the only theater I know of that didn't. The whole point of tearing the ticket and giving half to the patron is two-fold:
BS:
If posting an image with no context or explanation is "deceitful" then your picture is "deceitful" too.
Ok, that's your honest experience and I respect that but if we never needed the stub then why do they tear the ticket in half and give us back the stub?
Btw what happened to me being a waste of time? It's kinda like when you said in the long gone Caprio thread that you were going to leave and you did for a while, what happened?
JohnM
The forum was hacked. It wasn't Duncan's decision.
Wisely. "Mytton" has a long history of lying about what other people say.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the forum restart.
Why don't you ask LNers this question when they bid adieu, but keep coming back?
Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about the forum restart. Yes, I was very sad about that. Agree or disagree with Caprio, his posts were good summaries of the actual evidence. People could easily have just skipped them if they weren't interested. There must be a lot of computers with broken PgDn buttons out there.
Your question is nonsense. You want to imply that the lack of an existing receipt for the money order somehow invalidates it as evidence. However, there was no reason for Oswald to keep the PMO stub/receipt once he received and accepted the rifle, so the lack of a stub is neither unexpected nor exceptional. The handwriting on the actual money order has been authenticated as Oswald's signature, which ties it to him. That's all that's needed. Your huffy little aside demonstrates nothing other than you lack any real basis for argument, and would rather rely on vaporous insinuation rather than deal with the actual evidence.
I have asked them, I asked Paul May why he came back and he told me, what's the problem?
JohnM
Nice try again. It's not "basically the same". Cimino said he groaned. Markham said he tried to talk to her and that he knew she was there.
I don't remember that. What did he say?
Don't be shy, just ask him.
JohnM
Big deal. Show using supporting evidence how he got to the P.O. Then explain how he received a money order that wasnt due to be in circulation for a year or more.
Show using supporting evidence how he got to the P.O.
Then explain how he received a money order that wasnt due to be in circulation for a year or more.
So you can't tell me. Maybe because it never happened?
Big deal. Show using supporting evidence how he got to the P.O. Then explain how he received a money order that wasn't due to be in circulation for a year or more.Once the signature is is shown to be Oswald's, Oswald's possession of the MO is established. "How he got to the P.O." then becomes nothing more than a half-@$$3d exercise in goal-post manipulation by sore losers. As to your claim that this particular MO wasn't supposed to be in circulation, you need to explain what the hell you're talking about.
By watching him. A good, old-school salesman is adept at observing what you're paying attention to. That's out of necessity. BTW, it's how you can tell a professional from a dork. A dork will just stand there asking if "you need any help?" A pro will notice what catches your interest, then walk up and open a conversation on the item that's caught your attention.Police cars are approaching Brewer's store from the East, sirens blazing. A somewhat disheveled That Man (again, hereafter TM) tucks into the vestibule at the store's entrance. He doesn't enter, but just stands there just outside the door and keeps his back turned to the street. Brewer notices that TM is staring (as you like to point out), but he's not staring at the merchandise in the store or the display cases on either side of the vestibule.How would Brewer know what the man was looking at?
Avoiding the police is what Brewer thought TM was doing, or didn't you notice? And when you get down to it, this is all about what JC Brewer thought, not what I think, nor whatever sphincter-clenching notion you'd like to believe today.The police cars make a U-turn at Zang, half a block short of reaching the shoe store, and head back to the East. TM looks over his shoulder, then proceeds in a Westerly direction, away from where the police cars came from."Avoiding the police" is just injecting a biased assumption based on what you already believe. Maybe he was looking over his shoulder to avoid knocking down another pedestrian who might be walking by. If the police cars turned around at Zang, why would he need to look for police cars?
Brewer goes from standing on the sidewalk in front of his store to walking to the doors and finding them locked, then heading to the the theater. That took all of 5-10 seconds. Had That Man walked back out onto the sidewalk, he wouldn't have been able to go far at all before Brewer turned cleared the vestibule and headed West. Brewer would have seen him. Oh, and did I mention that Brewer actually saw That Man in the theater when they turned the lights up?TM continues on until he reaches the Texas Theatre, when Brewer sees TM disappear into the recess at the front of the theater. Brewer walks to the theater, doesn't see the guy reappear, and notices TM isn't in front of the theater when Brewer gets there.You forgot the part where he went back to the shoe store first.
This is what she said:Brewer realizes that TM had to have entered the theater, and asks the ticket clerk whether she'd sold TM a ticket. He gets a negative response; the guy snuck in.No, she said she wasn't sure whether he did or not.
Like I said, the question is whether Brewer thought that it was suspicious behavior. He certainly seems to have thought so. And, on any other day, he might not have given That Man another thought. But November 22, 1963 just wasn't any other day in Oak Cliff. I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot of other people calling the DPD that day for things that they otherwise wouldn't have given a second thought to. In Brewer's case, he turned out to be the one guy who really was onto something. And yes, I can see why Brewer decided the That Man was behaving suspiciously.the guy snuck in. You might be the only sucker alive who couldn't see that as suspicious and evasive behavior.Be honest -- you consider it suspicious behavior because you already believe it was Oswald and he was avoiding the police.
He was arrested after he struck a policeman and pulled a gun. Let me guess: you don't consider that suspicious behavior, either.Actually I consider that a false statement. McDonald didn't say he pulled a gun. Besides, he was arrested for murder, not for striking a policeman or pulling a gun.
He entered a theater without buying a ticket and sat down in the auditorium. That would most likely constitute criminal trespass.The criminal trespass thing would in itself have created probable cause to arrest and search Oswald once Brewer pointed him out.No, actually it would not have been. They had no probable cause for criminal trespass either. And they tried to search him before they arrested him. No go.
So who is huffing?You mean the stub the USPS keeps for its records, not the receipt part. Exactly why would that particular stub be important? And how would that stub invalidate Oswald's signature?
I was hinting at this stub, as per Informant Holmes:
Mr. HOLMES. .........So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub to show which would designate, which would show the number of the money order, and that is the only way you could find one..........
But great fun to see Mytton cut in front of you displaying the money order showing amount and date Holmes was NOT sent looking for.
M&Ms, what a pair!
Brewer said the balcony was empty, therefore his estimated 15-20 were all downstairs. His estimate included the empty balcony.
So....the Commission was lying, again:
"About six or seven people were seated on the theatre's main floor and an equal number in the balcony."
Not that you're desperate for attention, Tom. To a 24/7/365/CTerGetALife, I suppose having more pressing matters to attend to away from this forum is considered 'fading' by you lot...
Considering your resent posting history I doubt you have much else to do.
So now you're reverting to the WC on the balcony thing....LOL
Your cunning shoe salesman told Griggs how they circumvented that problem, remember?
Did Brewer tell the truth to the WC or to Griggs?
So now you're reverting to the WC on the balcony thing....LOL
Your cunning shoe salesman told Griggs how they circumvented that problem, remember?
Did Brewer tell the truth to the WC or to Griggs?
Did Chapman tell you to post this nonsense while he's away?
While turning his back to doors they suddenly become locked... ???
Great job!
So why did he return?
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/oswald11.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
So they used a real Money Order, I thought you said they just faked the lot.
JohnM
Instead of your usual jumping to conclusions that only exist in your own mind, how about you just ask him, he's got nothing to hide.
Btw why didn't you ever debate Paul May, what are you scared of?
JohnM
Once the signature is is shown to be Oswald's, Oswald's possession of the MO is established. "How he got to the P.O." then becomes nothing more than a half-@$$3d exercise in goal-post manipulation by sore losers. As to your claim that this particular MO wasn't supposed to be in circulation, you need to explain what the hell you're talking about.
Did Chapman tell you to post this nonsense while he's away?Read his account again. He told Griggs how they got locked. Now you can enlighten us all to why you think it's important?
While turning his back to doors they suddenly become locked... ???
Great job!
Exactly why would that particular stub be important?It didn't explain why you think it's important. And it still doesn't explain why you think it's important. Tomorrow won't change things either.
Read back, I already highlighted that part for you.
And how would that stub invalidate Oswald's signature?What information on the stub would make a difference? Or is it that you don't really know?
Since we don't have that stub we can't know can we?
Btw, have you ever heard of fake signatures?Have I ever heard of one? Yes. Have you ever proven one? I'm not holding my breath.
No it isn't. Why can't the LNers provide evidence that shows LHO actually purchased the money order in question?What, the two questioned-document examiners who verified Oswald's signature on the PMO are what, chopped liver? And how many handwriting experts have examined the money order and determined that it wasn't Oswald's handwriting?
What, the two questioned-document examiners who verified Oswald's signature on the PMO are what, chopped liver? And how many handwriting experts have examined the money order and determined that it wasn't Oswald's handwriting?
Quote them saying this.Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?
On Planet ConspiraClown, Brewer is the suspect and Saint Patsy is the innocent goober taking a stroll and window shopping for shoes on his way to an exciting double feature playing in the Texas Theater.
There's nothing conclusive about handwriting "analysis".The Washington Post did a series on the state of forensic science. In it they note that a test of signature analysis generated a false positive match 3.4% of the time. The scientific standard for validity is a 95% correct rate. And having two separate examinations of the same material would lead to a false positive on the order of 0.034 * 0.034 = 0.00115 or 0.115% of the time. I kinda like those odds.
And Trolletti isn't really trolling. Just Magoo-like going on a discussion forum with his impossible standard-of-proof and asking "reasonable" questions out of a genuine search for the truth. Sometimes he veers off into an "uncivil discourse" not of his own making.Well, he starts out arguing something like a creationist playing the old transitional-forms angle:
Well, he starts out arguing something like a creationist playing the old transitional-forms angle:It's somewhat like the deconstructionist fad of the 1980s where one would render a text indecipherable - words have open and no fixed meanings and therefore they can have no true meaning - thus making the author disappear.
That is, Creationist looks at the fossil record, and says,"hey, there's a gap between species B and species R. Evolution can't be right, because there should be a transition form between the two."
The response is "There *is* a transitional form between B and R, it's species K"
Then Creationist smiles and says, "ooh! You shouldn't have said that! Now you have twice the problem! Where are the transitional forms between B and K and K and R?!?!?!"
In JI's case, it boils down to him arguing more and more about smaller and smaller issues until he's arguing about a patch of bark on one tree so fervently that he's forgotten he's in the middle of a great forest. Maybe he secretly hopes everyone else stopped noticing the forest, too.
It's somewhat like the deconstructionist fad of the 1980s where one would render a text indecipherable - words have open and no fixed meanings and therefore they can have no true meaning - thus making the author disappear.
As in: what did Brewer mean by suspicious? Or frightened? So we have to drill down forever into what he meant by those terms. Since there is no fully agreed upon definition - at least to the Oswald defender - the words have no meaning. The evidence is made to disappear.
Meanwhile, the fact that Oswald - the only person to have left the building where shots were fired - is several miles away carrying a loaded revolver with extra bullets in his pocket - is lost in the exercise.
You have a problem with Holmes' grammar or specific words?Neither. The problem is, Holmes' words don't explain why you think they are important. Apparently, you don't know, either.
Didn't say that. Never had a reason not to trust him. You, on the other hand, are in a completely different spot. Are you ever going to explain what you think is important about what Holmes said, or are you going to continue acting like an asinine child?Neither. The problem is, Holmes' words don't explain why you think they are important. Apparently, you don't know, either.You don't trust Holmes?
*) Since they stayed behind anyway the act of closing up the shop also made no sense.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.
Cole's deposition goes into more detail as to what the "standard writing"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm
And yet, the money order number wasn't in circulation at the time of purchase. How do you explain that?
Unlike you I want to get to the bottom of things.You sure coulda fooled me. I think that Brewer is still around, so I guess you could ask him.
Primary reason: his account (movements) involving the IBM boys does not match his WC testimony.By timing myself walking 15 feet to a locked door, pulling on the door twice to make sure it was locked, then walking 15 back to where I started from. Took a bit under seven seconds.
Secondly, locking themselves up inside the shop, behind his back, makes no sense unless he intended to continue towards TT. [...] Since they stayed behind anyway the act of closing up the shop also made no sense.
Chapman obviously didn't understand it, so where did you get the 5-10 seconds from?
And yet, the money order number wasn't in circulation at the time of purchase. How do you explain that?First you need to explain what your assertion really is. I'll bet it's less than what you want us to think.
Also, quote me the handwriting experts for the defense and what they found. Oh, that's right, he was provided any legal representation. Experts for the prosecution are going to agree with the prosecution. That is a simple fact.And this is just sour grapes.
You sure coulda fooled me. I think that Brewer is still around, so I guess you could ask him.
By timing myself walking 15 feet to a locked door, pulling on the door twice to make sure it was locked, then walking 15 back to where I started from. Took a bit under seven seconds.
Focus: It was locked, then he was going to check...
Unlike you I want to get to the bottom of things.
Primary reason: his account (movements) involving the IBM boys does not match his WC testimony.
Secondly, locking themselves up inside the shop, behind his back, makes no sense unless he intended to continue towards TT.*)
Chapman obviously didn't understand it, so where did you get the 5-10 seconds from?
*) Since they stayed behind anyway the act of closing up the shop also made no sense.
Wow, amazing the door didn't hit Brewer on his way out -- that IBM guy sure didn't waste any time shutting up Hardy's!
So the two shoe geeks already broke for the weekend?
Now I'm not surprised Brewer was in fear of being fired...locking up and leaving the store during business hours.
Interesting game you're playing. If you understand what he's saying, and have no reason not to trust him, you wouldn't need to ask why I THINK it's important.That the money order was signed by Oswald (under the A J Hidell alias) has been established by handwriting analysis. No matter how you try to argue around that, it's the 900 pound gorilla sitting on your puny objections, crushing them under it's weight. At that point, the USPS stub carries no real meaning as evidence that it was used to purchase the rifle. It's usefulness was limited to finding a PMO for the right amount of money at the right time and using the serial number on the stub to track down the actual money order.
Happy to call your bluff.
What Holmes says is no slip no number to search. Without a slip in evidence there's no reason to believe that search ever took place or that Oswald bought that money order.
Again no supporting evidence?
And if you want to compare money order numbers over any length of time then we need to see a few examples because this is way before money order numbers were stamped in chronological order with networked computers, in 1963 money orders were sent out pre stamped all over the country in boxes.
JohnM
First you need to explain what your assertion really is. I'll bet it's less than what you want us to think.
And this is just sour grapes.
Evidence for this is?
Your handwriting analysis is not even relevant until it has been establish the MO was actually sold to anyone at the location claimed by Holmes. The WC did no such thing since the stub is not in evidence. Even if the stub was not available (and why would that be?) they should at a minimum have verified the serial number was current at the time of purchase at that post office. By not even doing these rudimentary checks they VIOLATED the executive order that told them explicitly to examine the evidence provided by the FBI --- utter FAILURE.The handwriting analysis shows Oswald signed the PMO, linking him indelibly to it. Armstrong seems to understand this, which is why he tried to run an end around the handwriting issue entirely. Even then, his analyses are desperate speculation. His issue with the PMO's serial number is built around some figuring on money order usage that he did based on a sample size of three POs taken two months before the one in question. He also effectively admits to a lack of understanding as to how the blank money orders were distributed to and within post offices. His insistence that Oswald mailed the the PO from the West Dallas PO is based on the assertion that a number "12" on the cancellation must have meant "postal zone 12." David Von Pein did what Armstrong should have done, found a retried USPS worker who knew about the cancellation stamps, and found that the "12" on the cancellation denoted a particular sorting/cancelling machine. Further, he found that the postal zones were used for deliver mail to customers, and would have had no bearing on incoming mail in the first place. The Armstrong screed does this over and over again in repeated spasms of speculative orgy.
The various problems with the "Oswald" money order is outlined here, also why the serial number is highly dubious:
https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
So English is a problem for you? It is the law. You may want to live in Nazi Germany, but many of us choose not to.You went full Godwin. Never go full Godwin. Then again, I guess you assumed that it would distract everyone from noticing that you've made another bald assertion that you simply will not support. In fact, you've outdone yourself. You won't even explain what your issue with the serial number is. I guess you just aren't confident in your beliefs.
Evidence for what? It's your claim prove it!
JohnM
Again no supporting evidence?
And if you want to compare money order numbers over any length of time then we need to see a few examples because this is way before money order numbers were stamped in chronological order with networked computers, in 1963 money orders were sent out pre stamped all over the country in boxes.
JohnM
First you need to explain what your assertion really is. I'll bet it's less than what you want us to think.
And this is just sour grapes.
You went full Godwin. Never go full Godwin. Then again, I guess you assumed that it would distract everyone from noticing that you've made another bald assertion that you simply will not support. In fact, you've outdone yourself. You won't even explain what your issue with the serial number is. I guess you just aren't confident in your beliefs.
My statement has been posted before in my series. The money order number wasn't due to be sold until late 1964 or early 1965. How would LHO get it in March 1963?
Second Bump/Gee, deep analysis in progress...?
Early 1965? LOL
JohnM
Just wanted to be 100% sure your reply was nonsense.
Scenario A - Buy Ticket Not
Sneaks in
Intercepted by Burroughs
Sent back to box office
Buys ticket
Rechecked by Burroughs
Burroughs takes mental note of cheater.
Scenario B - Buy Ticket
Buys ticket
Enters
Checked by Burroughs.
Takes a real Warren Sucker to claim Scenario B has no advantage over A if Oswald wants to stay under the radar.
It's helpful to have a Postal Inspector as a FBI informant, huh? When will you support your claim?
You left out Scenario C
Sneaks in and isn't intercepted by Burroughs, and wouldn't give a crap if he was.
Takes a real sucker to believe Saint Patsy was worried about Burroughs.
"I better stop and buy a ticket bcz Burroughs might intercept me"
Why would he gamble and hope not to be stopped by the ticket taker and possibly getting everyone's attention when he could eliminate this risk at 95 cents?
So he ducked into the theater to get attention?
Tell me you applied your common sense to work this out.
He was seen by Postal.
You're really bad at this.
Nice try.
According to her testimony.
Did Oswald have a ruddy complexion?
Why this game? Do you have proof that Oswalds money order came back from the future?
JohnM
Yes, a guy who had just assassinated the president and killed a police officer would be real concerned about being caught without a movie ticket. He may not even known there is a ticket taker inside. He sees Postal is distracted and enters the theater. If it was a dumb move, then CTers should blame Oswald.
If they didn't, they are the only theater I know of that didn't. The whole point of tearing the ticket and giving half to the patron is two-fold:
It cancels the ticket: a patron who bought a ticket, saw a movie, and left the theater can't re-enter the place on the half ticket.
It serves as a receipt proving that a customer in the theater proper had purchased a ticket.
Now, do you have any evidence that the Texas Theatre didn't give back stubs? Or are you just trying to play Junior G-Man Grinchiklaus, searching desperately for a Christmas tree light that won't light on one side?
My picture, what's that got to do with the assassination?
Just another JohnI bait and switch, you continually and might I add unsuccessfully attempt to discredit Markham, first you post a photo of Markham to deceive and then you deliberately lie about her testimony.
This constant mission to discredit Markham is sad and pathetic. But hey, whatever it takes.
If the part in bold can be supported then it would blow the lid off this fairytale.
She discredits herself.
Oh, and did I mention that Brewer actually saw That Man in the theater when they turned the lights up?
To get from that collection of statements to "she said she wasn't sure whether he did or not," you have to pretend most of them don't exist, then take the last remaining one and strip the negative connotation completely out of it. I'm sure that was all just an accident.
Brewer, John Gibson, and George Applin all saw a pistol in Oswald's hand during the melee with the cops. How did it get there if he didn't draw it himself? I mean, did a feral revolver that lived in the alley charge into the theater through the open back door then lunge at McDonald's throat before Oswald bravely saved the day by grabbing the rabies-crazed firearm to protect McDonald from it's venomous bite?
He entered a theater without buying a ticket and sat down in the auditorium. That would most likely constitute criminal trespass.
And the cops didn't even need a warrant or probable cause to stop and frisk you. Remember the NYPD's "stop and frisk" program?
Here's some background from people with an actual legal background:
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street
I know Brewer thought that the guy he saw 50 yards away down by the furniture store from behind was the same guy who was standing is his vestibule was the same guy he pointed out in the theater. But that doesn't make it true.
Well, he starts out arguing something like a creationist playing the old transitional-forms angle:
That is, Creationist looks at the fossil record, and says,"hey, there's a gap between species B and species R. Evolution can't be right, because there should be a transition form between the two."
It makes sense for citizens to remain behind locked doors when a manhunt is underway.
First off, I'm not asking this to provoke a fight. I'm just curious as to what some think about Oswald going to the movies, after the President was shot at, from the building he worked in. Some of the TSBD employees left after the shooting, but he was the only one not to return. He went home got his revolver and then went to the movies. Just seems like an odd thing to do, after something as historical as the president getting shot at, happened in front of where he worked.
Actually, it's the "Oswald-Did-It"-ites who are like the Creationists. They believe it because their book says so, and because an authority figure said so.
an authority figure said so.
>>> Tricky, differentiating between 'pulling' and 'drawing'
We've been through your list and it amounts to Markham not understanding a question and Markham understandably being a little distressed because in front of her very eyes she witnesses a man being shot to death. But it still doesn't change her positive identification, sorry about that.
What a bizarre argument, Brewer saw Oswald enter the theater and Oswald was in the theater, we even see Oswald leaving the theater.
Actually, it's the "Oswald-Did-It"-ites who are like the Creationists. They believe it because their book says so, and because an authority figure said so.
McDonald, quoted in 11/23/63 AP article:
"I saw him going for his gun and I grabbed him around the waist. We struggled and fell around the seats for a few seconds and I got my hand on the butt of his pistol."
Paul Bentley KRLD interview, 11/22/63:
"as he reached for his pistol I grabbed him along with two or three other officers".
That was later embellished by McDonald into "he was drawing it". McDonald said he grabbed Oswald's hand before the gun ever came out, therefore Oswald did not "pull a gun".
You could have just said "no, I don't have any evidence that the Texas Theater tore tickets" rather than just trying to shift the burden of proof.Other than Butch Burroughs telling the Commission that part of his job was "taking tickets," you are technically correct that there is no direct evidence for the idea. In the sense of "technically correct" that makes other people roll their eyes comment as to how you're acting like a total dorkotronic unit.
Except how did they know a "manhunt was underway"?
I'm sorry that you actually think that biased, unfair lineups prove anything. All of Henry Wade's overturned cases indicate otherwise.
I'm sorry that you actually think that biased, unfair lineups prove anything.
He was seen by Postal.
You're really bad at this.
Catch me up... now you're claiming that Postal did see Oswald, after all? Seems Johnny666 is at odds with that notion. And every other CTroll for the matter.
Unless someone can show that Dirty Harvey actually bought a ticket, it seems that he did indeed attempt to slip into the TT undetected. My reasoning regarding the need to take quick action to seek shelter stands, whether he was successful at avoiding detection or not.
Ray, I don't need a ouija board.
Saint Patsy wound up in the theater after murdering Tippit and trying to evade capture.
What does your ouija board tell you ? Why did Oswald go to the movies ?
If you don't need ouija board, Howard, you should be able to tell us.
I already told you, Ray.Thanks for your answer, Howard, but one question , "how do you know he went there to evade capture?" You wouldn't be guessing yet again, would you, Howard?
Saint Patsy wound up in the theater after murdering Tippt and trying to evade capture.
Did you not see that ? You just reposted me saying that ! Are you blind ?
Sheesh.
She discredits herself. Why all the dancing and twisting to make excuses for her bizarre claims? Could it be because she's the only witness to the Tippit shooting who identified the man (in an unfair lineup) as Oswald (because of his eyes)?
Yes, the only thing lacking is any evidence! Brewer confirms he went to work at the shoe company straight out of school.
Mr. BELIN - Did you go to school after you graduated from high school?
Mr. BREWER - I went to Southwest Texas State Teachers College in San Marcos a year, and a year in Nixon Clay Business College in Austin.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. BREWER - I got married and quit school and went to work for Hardy's Shoe Store. I----that was in September, and I got married in December. And I have been with them ever since.
Mr. BELIN - When did you go to work for Hardy's Shoe Store?
Mr. BREWER - In September of 1961.
Mr. BELIN - Do they assign you to any particular store?
Mr. BREWER - I worked at the Capital Plaza Shopping Center in Austin for about 10 months, and then they transferred me to Dallas and gave me a store down on Jefferson.
Mr. BELIN - In Austin were you just a shoe salesman?
Mr. BREWER - I was assistant manager.
Mr. BELIN - And they transferred you to a shop on Jefferson?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - In Dallas?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - What is the address of that shop in Dallas?
Mr. BREWER - 213 West Jefferson.
What a bizarre argument, Brewer saw Oswald enter the theater and Oswald was in the theater, we even see Oswald leaving the theater.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTW14Opg38WfusVYS3XipttQSRPdFQhuKit9E32J3LIGaU4Pe1F)
JohnM
It makes sense for citizens to remain behind locked doors when a manhunt is underway.
Other than Butch Burroughs telling the Commission that part of his job was "taking tickets," you are technically correct that there is no direct evidence for the idea. In the sense of "technically correct" that makes other people roll their eyes comment as to how you're acting like a total dorkotronic unit.
Taking tickets, tearing them, then giving a punter the stub as a proof of purchase is a ubiquitous activity at theaters. That's because there are well-established practical reasons behind doing it that way: it's a cheap way to cancel the ticket (so it can't be re-used by someone else) while leaving the customer a receipt proving that they are entitled to to whatever acccess/services granted by the ticket. Ubiquitous enough that it's reasonable to assume that the Texas Theatre did --especially if Burroughs was "taking tickets."
The first clue would be the radio reports Brewer said they were listening to about the murder(s), and cop cars with sirens blaring, flooding Oak Cliff.
And this is where you produce a training manual of "suggestions" to support your ideas, but nowhere can you point out that the Dallas lineups were actually "unfair". Go figure.
Thanks for your answer, Howard, but one question , "how do you know he went there to evade capture?" You wouldn't be guessing yet again, would you, Howard?
He wanted money.
?Mr. BALL. And after you saw the police car go west with its siren on, why at the time the police car went west with its siren on, did you see the man that ducked? This man that you were----
Mrs. POSTAL. This man, yes; he ducked into the box office...?
The best line in the thread so far:
Unlike you suckers we don't need a playbook.
:D :D :D
Playbook? Ha ha ha, you would have needed a full Spring Training to pull off the crap that some of you crackbags have come up with in order for this Grand Conspiracy to have been executed. Playbook :D . Thanks for the laugh. (LOL)
I suppose it's less dorky to just assume stuff that you have no evidence for. The WC was just being UN-dorkotronic. Yeah, that's the ticket (pun intended).As a variation on what I 'd said before (that you deleted for some mysterious reason), I have no evidence that tens of thousands of people got up this morning and commuted to work in their automobiles. Did it happen? Of course it did! It happens almost every weekday. It's such a common, regular occurrence that it can simply be assumed to occur daily outside of weekends, holidays, and some tiny population of truly extraordinary events. As such, it can safely assumed. The same goes for someone taking a theater ticket, tearing it in half, and handing the poor sucker a stub as proof of purchase. It's so common that if you want to argue that it didn't happen, you need to come up with some good reason to not expect it to have occurred.
It seems to me that a person claiming that "Oswald didn't buy a ticket", would actually have a basis for that claim, rather than making a speculative argument from "ubiquity". It would have been easy enough to ask Burroughs when they had him.You're kidding, right? The person who claimed that Oswald didn't buy a ticket was Julia Postal. She's the girl in the ticket booth selling tickets, so I figure that she'd know firsthand whether she sold some guy a ticket better than an internet troll would 55 years later.
He was 20 when he started work for Hardy's in 1961. This does not preclude a two-year hitch before this. He claimed to go to school, but can you support this claim with evidence?Look at the testimony excerpt again. He graduated high school, spent a year at TSTC and another attending a different college before getting on at Hardy's. Unless he graduated high school a couple of years early, then there's no time for a two year enlistment. Then again, people who graduate early tend not to wind up selling shoes.
Actually, it's the "Oswald-Did-It"-ites who are like the Creationists. They believe it because their book says so, and because an authority figure said so.The WC report is based on hundreds, if not thousands, of interviews with eyewitnesses and experts. Pages and pages and pages of reports, photographs, schematics, and graphs, all of which were published alongside the report. Even if you disagree with it's conclusions, implying that the report is some work of faith completely misses reality.
Finally, you're asking a question and a good one at that. I've always wondered about that. It's a conundrum for sure, but then so is him going to a middle of nowhere place like 10th street. What in the world was he doing there, walking along with no obvious place to go, when he could have been on a bus out of town?
The same goes for someone taking a theater ticket, tearing it in half, and handing the poor sucker a stub as proof of purchase. It's so common that if you want to argue that it didn't happen, you need to come up with some good reason to not expect it to have occurred.
You're kidding, right? The person who claimed that Oswald didn't buy a ticket was Julia Postal. She's the girl in the ticket booth selling tickets, so I figure that she'd know firsthand whether she sold some guy a ticket better than an internet troll would 55 years later.
The WC report is based on hundreds, if not thousands, of interviews with eyewitnesses and experts. Pages and pages and pages of reports, photographs, schematics, and graphs, all of which were published alongside the report.
And, by the way, you really stooped to the old "I know you are, but what am I?" Really? Sir, I'll have you know that I am of the finest quality Brazilian rubber while you are composed of cheap, gluten-based sticky-products. Your crap ricochets from me and adheres to your person.
Did the guy who bought popcorn from Burroughs at 1:07 also sneak in without buying a ticket?
No, he paid for his ticket.
The guy that murdered Tippit and assassinated JFK snuck in.
No, he paid for his ticket.
The guy that murdered Tippit and assassinated JFK snuck in.
Cool, because Burroughs said that was Oswald.
Did he say which Oswald ? :D
Interesting you seem to believe there were two Oswald's, Howard.
The WC report is based on hundreds, if not thousands, of interviews with eyewitnesses and experts. Pages and pages and pages of reports, photographs, schematics, and graphs, all of which were published alongside the report. Even if you disagree with it's conclusions, implying that the report is some work of faith completely misses reality.
And, by the way, you really stooped to the old "I know you are, but what am I?" Really? Sir, I'll have you know that I am of the finest quality Brazilian rubber while you are composed of cheap, gluten-based sticky-products. Your crap ricochets from me and adheres to your person.
So there. :-P
25,000 interviews
Good thing too, because how else would we have Jack Ruby?s mother?s dental records?
Yeah, and how do we know the dental records weren't faked ?
Boo F'n Hoo.
So this Johnny on the ball nitwit not only had one Oswald sneak by him, he had two Oswalds sneak by him? He saw neither enter. This eagle eyed popcorn/goobers/ju ju bes/junior mints salesman is the foundation of your theory? GMAFB
Look at the testimony excerpt again. He graduated high school, spent a year at TSTC and another attending a different college before getting on at Hardy's. Unless he graduated high school a couple of years early, then there's no time for a two year enlistment. Then again, people who graduate early tend not to wind up selling shoes.
The WC report is based on hundreds, if not thousands, of interviews with eyewitnesses and experts. Pages and pages and pages of reports, photographs, schematics, and graphs, all of which were published alongside the report. Even if you disagree with it's conclusions, implying that the report is some work of faith completely misses reality.
And, by the way, you really stooped to the old "I know you are, but what am I?" Really? Sir, I'll have you know that I am of the finest quality Brazilian rubber while you are composed of cheap, gluten-based sticky-products. Your crap ricochets from me and adheres to your person.
So there. :-P
I don't believe you've actually demonstrated that it's such a common occurrence -- especially in 1963 in Dallas. Why make any assumptions one way or the other?You don't believe it? That must be one of those slippery statements, the kind that some Freudian type was forever going on about. But, hey, why assume that the sun is coming up tomorrow morning? Why assume that your car is going to start? Better hit up uber instead. But, wait. How do you really know there's an Uber car out there at all? Maybe there's no Uber anymore! Welcome to the Iacolletti Archipelago, dead center in the Solipsistic Triangle, where nothing might be real!
No, I'm not kidding. She told both Brewer and the FBI that she wasn't sure if she did or not.
And if you can't actually demonstrate that any patron got a ticket stub, then your observation that no ticket was found is not dispositive. Nor can you rule out the possibility of a ticket being thrown on the floor or in the trash. At best you can say that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Oswald did or did not buy a ticket.You have it the wrong way around. You need to demonstrate that he had a ticket. Any evidence at all would be appreciated.
Did the guy who bought popcorn from Burroughs at 1:07 also sneak in without buying a ticket?In TMWKK, he's said Oswald "slipped in" between 1:00 and 1:07. Of course, this version of events is something that doesn't appear in Burroughs' testimony
Testimony that is not open to cross-examination is just claims. Can you cite actual evidence showing that he attended those institutions?I have what he claims in his testimony, and no good reason to doubt it. On the other hand, you have......?
So the fact that the evidence in the twenty-six volumes does NOT support the claims made in the WCR doesn't bother you in the least?What bothers me (and not that much, lest you worry) is that you don't seem to be bothered by the facts in the first place..
You don't believe it? That must be one of those slippery statements, the kind that some Freudian type was forever going on about. But, hey, why assume that the sun is coming up tomorrow morning? Why assume that your car is going to start? Better hit up uber instead. But, wait. How do you really know there's an Uber car out there at all? Maybe there's no Uber anymore! Welcome to the Iacolletti Archipelago, dead center in the Solipsistic Triangle, where nothing might be real!
Let's go back to the what I replied to you on the 22nd, with the FBI report added in:
This is what she said:
In her 12/4/63 affidavit: "I told him no, I didn't"
In the 2/29/1964 FBI report: "she said she was unable to recall whether he bought a ticket, but she believed that he walked right by her ticket booth..."
In her WC testimony: "I said, 'No; by golly, he didn't'"
What Brewer said:
In his 12/4/63 affidavit: "she replied that she did not think so"
In his WC testimony: "she said no, she hadn't"
To Ian Griggs: "she said no, she hadn't"
So now we have six different accounts. In four of these, she says, "no." In one, she "did not think so," which implies her doubt that it happened, even if she wasn't certain. In fact, in colloquial usage, "I don't think so" can mean a flat, emphatic, "no." And, finally, there's the FBI report, in which she is said to be "unable to recall whether he bought a ticket." Then again, it says The only one that really fits you interpretation is the FBI version. So, of six accounts, there are four no's, one doubtful, and one I don't know. Of these accounts, you ignore two-thirds, strip the fifth of it's negative connotation, and concentrate on the only one that was generated by someone who wasn't actually at the scene at the time of the events described. If that's not cherry-picking, cherries must not exist.
Then again, there's that bit about "she believed that he walked right by her ticket booth," which pretty much says straight out that he didn't buy a ticket at that time. There was only a minute or so between Postal seeing Oswald round the corner into the frontal recess of theater and Brewer asking about That Man; Postal would have known if That Man had bought a ticket at the time Brewer saw him. The only way she would be uncertain is if she thought he might have bought a ticket much earlier, and had either walked away from the theater to come back later, or had gone in, come back out, and re-entered. The problem with that is she, like Brewer, identified That Man as Lee Harvey Oswald, and you have to get him to the theater in time to do that. If you can't do that, then she didn't sell him a ticket.
You have it the wrong way around. You need to demonstrate that he had a ticket. Any evidence at all would be appreciated.
No ticket, stub or any other indication of proper patronage (soft drink, popcorn tub, Jujubees, etc) was observed in the possession of Oswald.
To my knowledge, he never claimed he'd purchased a ticket.
Burroughs never said that he took a ticket from Oswald.
At the very least, Postal didn't remember selling him one. Even then, to get that out of her, you have to cherrymander the pits out of the witness statements.
The best you can do, other than the aforementioned cherrymandering, is to make excuses as to why there is no evidence Oswald bought a ticket. And even the cherry-picking can only get you a little uncertainty.
In TMWKK, he's said Oswald "slipped in" between 1:00 and 1:07. Of course, this version of events is something that doesn't appear in Burroughs' testimony
until the late 1980s. It's not in his WC testimony.
BTW, and this is a question for anyone who might know. Burroughs told the WC that the Army would not induct him because "the mental part----[he] didn't make enough points on the score." Be also notes that he'd dropped out of school in 9th grade but (at 22) he was going to some "private school" in Highland Park (which is something of an odd place to go to school if you're an electrician's kid) . Julia Postal's testimony about Burroughs isn't particularly flattering; in her account, he's easily excitable and prone to exaggeration. And in TMWKK, Burroughs talks in an oddly halting way; also when he is shown sitting in the Texas Theatre concession going through a small pile of ticket stubs (:P), the way he uses his hand is odd and awkward. Does anyone know if he was mentally challenged, to use the last term-or-the-art that I know of?
I have what he claims in his testimony, and no good reason to doubt it. On the other hand, you have......?
What bothers me (and not that much, lest you worry) is that you don't seem to be bothered by the facts in the first place..
Hi Brian....You and I seem to be in complete harmony ..... Many years ago I reached the conclusion that when J. Edgar Hoover learned of the CIA renegades and Cubans plot to murder JFK ( for what they imagined to be a betrayal at BOP) he decided to secretly back them, or capitalize on their plot and run his own plot behind their plot.
It's nearly impossible to get people to open their eyes and accept the truth, So I'm elated to find that you share convictions. Lee Oswald was nothing but a patsy, ....for the criminal authorities.
You don't believe it? That must be one of those slippery statements, the kind that some Freudian type was forever going on about. But, hey, why assume that the sun is coming up tomorrow morning? Why assume that your car is going to start? Better hit up uber instead. But, wait. How do you really know there's an Uber car out there at all? Maybe there's no Uber anymore! Welcome to the Iacolletti Archipelago, dead center in the Solipsistic Triangle, where nothing might be real!
In his 12/4/63 affidavit: "she replied that she did not think so"
Then again, there's that bit about "she believed that he walked right by her ticket booth," which pretty much says straight out that he didn't buy a ticket at that time.
There was only a minute or so between Postal seeing Oswald round the corner into the frontal recess of theater and Brewer asking about That Man;
The only way she would be uncertain is if she thought he might have bought a ticket much earlier, and had either walked away from the theater to come back later, or had gone in, come back out, and re-entered.
The problem with that is she, like Brewer, identified That Man as Lee Harvey Oswald,
and you have to get him to the theater in time to do that. If you can't do that, then she didn't sell him a ticket.
You have it the wrong way around. You need to demonstrate that he had a ticket.
Any evidence at all would be appreciated.
No ticket, stub or any other indication of proper patronage (soft drink, popcorn tub, Jujubees, etc) was observed in the possession of Oswald.
To my knowledge, he never claimed he'd purchased a ticket.
Burroughs never said that he took a ticket from Oswald.
You don't believe it? That must be one of those slippery statements, the kind that some Freudian type was forever going on about. But, hey, why assume that the sun is coming up tomorrow morning? Why assume that your car is going to start? Better hit up uber instead. But, wait. How do you really know there's an Uber car out there at all? Maybe there's no Uber anymore! Welcome to the Iacolletti Archipelago, dead center in the Solipsistic Triangle, where nothing might be real!
Let's go back to the what I replied to you on the 22nd, with the FBI report added in:
This is what she said:
In her 12/4/63 affidavit: "I told him no, I didn't"
In the 2/29/1964 FBI report: "she said she was unable to recall whether he bought a ticket, but she believed that he walked right by her ticket booth..."
In her WC testimony: "I said, 'No; by golly, he didn't'"
What Brewer said:
In his 12/4/63 affidavit: "she replied that she did not think so"
In his WC testimony: "she said no, she hadn't"
To Ian Griggs: "she said no, she hadn't"
So now we have six different accounts. In four of these, she says, "no." In one, she "did not think so," which implies her doubt that it happened, even if she wasn't certain. In fact, in colloquial usage, "I don't think so" can mean a flat, emphatic, "no." And, finally, there's the FBI report, in which she is said to be "unable to recall whether he bought a ticket." Then again, it says The only one that really fits you interpretation is the FBI version. So, of six accounts, there are four no's, one doubtful, and one I don't know. Of these accounts, you ignore two-thirds, strip the fifth of it's negative connotation, and concentrate on the only one that was generated by someone who wasn't actually at the scene at the time of the events described. If that's not cherry-picking, cherries must not exist.
Then again, there's that bit about "she believed that he walked right by her ticket booth," which pretty much says straight out that he didn't buy a ticket at that time. There was only a minute or so between Postal seeing Oswald round the corner into the frontal recess of theater and Brewer asking about That Man; Postal would have known if That Man had bought a ticket at the time Brewer saw him. The only way she would be uncertain is if she thought he might have bought a ticket much earlier, and had either walked away from the theater to come back later, or had gone in, come back out, and re-entered. The problem with that is she, like Brewer, identified That Man as Lee Harvey Oswald, and you have to get him to the theater in time to do that. If you can't do that, then she didn't sell him a ticket.
You have it the wrong way around. You need to demonstrate that he had a ticket. Any evidence at all would be appreciated.
No ticket, stub or any other indication of proper patronage (soft drink, popcorn tub, Jujubees, etc) was observed in the possession of Oswald.
To my knowledge, he never claimed he'd purchased a ticket.
Burroughs never said that he took a ticket from Oswald.
At the very least, Postal didn't remember selling him one. Even then, to get that out of her, you have to cherrymander the pits out of the witness statements.
The best you can do, other than the aforementioned cherrymandering, is to make excuses as to why there is no evidence Oswald bought a ticket. And even the cherry-picking can only get you a little uncertainty.
In TMWKK, he's said Oswald "slipped in" between 1:00 and 1:07. Of course, this version of events is something that doesn't appear in Burroughs' testimony
until the late 1980s. It's not in his WC testimony.
BTW, and this is a question for anyone who might know. Burroughs told the WC that the Army would not induct him because "the mental part----[he] didn't make enough points on the score." Be also notes that he'd dropped out of school in 9th grade but (at 22) he was going to some "private school" in Highland Park (which is something of an odd place to go to school if you're an electrician's kid) . Julia Postal's testimony about Burroughs isn't particularly flattering; in her account, he's easily excitable and prone to exaggeration. And in TMWKK, Burroughs talks in an oddly halting way; also when he is shown sitting in the Texas Theatre concession going through a small pile of ticket stubs (:P), the way he uses his hand is odd and awkward. Does anyone know if he was mentally challenged, to use the last term-or-the-art that I know of?
Somehow I missed this, but luckily I saw Iacoletti's p!ss poor attempt at refutation, talk about a kickass post! Well Done!
Thanks for your p!ss poor attempt at jumping on the bandwagon...
Somehow I missed this, but luckily I saw Iacoletti's p!ss poor attempt at refutation, talk about a kickass post! Well Done!
JohnM
So you choose to believe an unsupported claim. Big deal. I guess this confirms that you have NO supporting evidence for his claim.Let's just go back to may last reply to you one this, shall we:
What facts would these be? Be specific.Quite possibly all of them.
Quite possibly all of them.
Appeal to ridicule. Invalid. Whether you think your assumption is reasonable or not, it's still an assumption based on no evidence.
Any particular reason you truncated the full statement? Just to spin it into a "no"?
"I asked the girl if she had sold the man a ticket and she replied that she did not think so, that she had been listening to the radio and did not remember."
You're also ignoring the fact that she asked Brewer "what man?". The various parts of her story are inconsistent with each other.
I agree that she would know that nobody bought a ticket at that time.
Where did you get that estimate?
Yup, agreed. If she in fact knew that "that man" did not buy a ticket then she would have consistently said so. Not said different things to different people and/or burst into tears.
Huh? When?
Why? I'm not claiming that Oswald bought a ticket. I don't know if he did or not -- just like Julia Postal told Brewer and the FBI. I'm responding the the argument that definitively claims that Oswald did not buy a ticket, merely because he did not buy a ticket at the time Brewer saw somebody turn a corner.
Agreed.
How would you know that? I think what you mean is that no reports mentioned such things.
To my knowledge, John Gibson never claimed he'd purchased a ticket either. So what?
No, but he did say he sold popcorn to Oswald about 20 minutes before Brewer saw his man who looked funny. And if you're going to challenge Burroughs on "mental health" grounds, then why are you using him for your argument?
The estimate for the time between That Man disappearing from Brewer's view and Brewer's appearance to Postal is based on the time it would take Brewer to find the door to Hardy's locked added to the time it would take Brewer to walk to Postal's box office.
I truncated "that she had been listening to the radio and did not remember" from Brewer's statement because it doesn't negate or modify "she replied that she did not think so," and is therefore superfluous.
While we're at it, why do you keep on deleting the Cosellequely veritable plethora of statements on the subject:
'This is what she said:
In her 12/4/63 affidavit: "I told him no, I didn't"
In the 2/29/1964 FBI report: "she said she was unable to recall whether he bought a ticket, but she believed that he walked right by her ticket booth..."
In her WC testimony: "I said, 'No; by golly, he didn't'"
What Brewer said:
In his 12/4/63 affidavit: "she replied that she did not think so"
In his WC testimony: "she said no, she hadn't"
To Ian Griggs: "she said no, she hadn't"'
You also seem to have not really read the various statements where Brewer and Postal identify the arrested man as Oswald.
I'll bet John Gibson wasn't badly in need of an alibi at the time. Oswald was.
In furtherance of this line of reasoning, you note that she replied to Brewer's initial question, "Did you sell a ticket to that man" with her own question "what man?" You place far to much emphasis on this, or rather you simply misunderstand the situation.
So, her uncertainty must be based on her inability to remember if That Man had bought a ticket at some earlier point (i.e., about 1PM or just before) with the rest of the Friday "crowd." In her mind, maybe he could have bought a ticket and went to do something nearby first, returning later. Or maybe he bought a ticket, went in, came out for some reason, then came back.
However, as Postal learns more of Friday afternoon's calamities, things change. Once Oswald's adventures that afternoon got into her head, the possibility that she could have sold him a ticket at an earlier time vanishes.
Julia Postal testified that Burroughs was "excitable" and already inflating his account by early 1964;
The other problem is that Oswald was identified at 1025 Beckley at 1PM and at the Tippit murder scene by Markham, Scoggins, Benavides, and Calloway at about 1:15. You can pick at Markham and Benavides all you want, but Scoggins is harder, and not even Gary Spence could crack Calloway.
Groper-in-Chief-Trump just gifted Kavavanah with a limo from his private fleetThe Canadian Cupcake chimes in.
http://killbill.wikia.com/wiki/File:Pussy-wagon-uma.jpg